University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developing capacity for higher education administration in Kazakhstan

(USC Thesis Other)

Developing capacity for higher education administration in Kazakhstan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Developing Capacity for Higher Education Administration in Kazakhstan
by
Madina Telmanova
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Madina Telmanova 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Madina Telmanova certifies the approval of this Dissertation:
Tracy Poon Tambascia, Committee Chair
Lynette Merriman
Charles Zukoski
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California 2024

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand higher education administrators’ perceptions of
capacity development programs and challenges they face in the change implementation process,
as well as potential implications of capacity development for change implementation. With
continuous transformations in the field of higher education in Kazakhstan, needs and roles of
universities are changing. Thus, the development of relevant organizational capacity becomes
critical in such context. The study employed the mixed methods approach and collected data
using a survey of university administrative staff from student affairs and career centers and semistructured interviews with university leadership. The obtained data revealed four key themes: 1)
lack of systematic approach to capacity development; 2) aligning professional development with
needs; 3) rapid pace of change; and 4) staff retention is essential in sustaining human capacity.
Based on these findings three evidence-based recommendations were developed: 1) development
of a policy on retention and incentivization of administrative staff; 2) revision of existing
qualification requirements to administrative positions so that they reflect knowledge and skills
necessary for the implementation of changes; and 3) systematization of the capacity development
of administrative staff and development of new approaches to capacity development that will
address existing gaps and challenges. Results of the study contribute to literature in
organizational change and capacity development of university administrative staff, with a
particular focus on Kazakhstani context. In addition, the study creates grounds for further
research, especially with elaboration of themes revealed in this study.
Keywords: Administrative staff, capacity development, change implementation,
transformation, Kazakhstan.

v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved grandfather. Though he is not here to witness
my achievements and successes, he was the one who shaped who I am today thanks to his
unconditional love, care, and unwavering support. I miss you so much and wish you could see
me at one of the happiest moments of my life and celebrate it with me.

vi
Acknowledgments
I am immensely thankful for support, love, and encouragement of all people who have
been with me throughout this challenging yet rewarding journey – a doctoral study.
To my mom and dad, who were always there for me. Without your belief, love, support,
and sacrifices, I would not have been able to achieve this significant milestone in my life. Thank
you for being my safe haven where I could come every time I felt powerless to recharge and
continue my studies.
To my supervisor, Dr. Tracy Tambascia. Your dedication to what you do,
professionalism, commitment, and kindness have been a source of inspiration for me to stay on
track and complete my dissertation. Your ability to explain, in a simple and structured way, all
difficult concepts helped me tackle all the chaos happening in my head and make things that
seemed impossible easy and achievable. Without your support and motivation, this dissertation
would not have been possible.
I would like to express my appreciation to my dissertation committee members, Dr.
Charles Zukoski and Dr. Lynette Merriman. Thank you for your time serving on my committee,
the expertise you shared with me, and thought-provoking questions. Dr. Zukoski, thank you for
your interest in Kazakhstan’s higher education system and insightful conversations.
I express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Shigeo Katsu, who encouraged me to embark on
this doctoral journey and was a great source of support. I was incredibly lucky and privileged to
work under your leadership and I am immensely thankful for your belief in my abilities and your
trust. Your wisdom, guidance and mentorship shaped my professional growth, values, and
principles.

vii
I am immensely thankful to my friends and colleagues who have been by my side
throughout this journey. Thank you for your endless support, words of wisdom, jokes, and
motivation that helped me to persevere in the most difficult moments.
Finally, I would like to congratulate my fellow Cohort 11 students on achieving this
significant milestone! Thank you all for your friendship, support, encouragement, and
motivation. I learned so much from each of you.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study............................................................................................................ 3
Definitions................................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ................................................................................................ 6
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 6
Overview of The Higher Education System in Kazakhstan ....................................................... 6
Current Higher Education Initiatives and Challenges .............................................................. 10
Capacity Development for Higher Education Administrators.................................................. 14
Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................. 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 36
Research Questions................................................................................................................... 37
Organization Overview............................................................................................................. 37
Population and Sample ............................................................................................................. 38
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 40
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness................................................................................................ 44
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 44
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................... 46
Role of the Researcher.............................................................................................................. 47

ix
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 49
Introduction..................................................................... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
Overview of Participants........................................................................................................... 49
Presentation of Findings ........................................................................................................... 53
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 70
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice ..................................................... 71
Discussion of Findings.............................................................................................................. 72
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................. 80
Implementation Plan for Recommendations............................................................................. 81
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................... 87
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................... 88
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 89
References..................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix A................................................................................................................................. 102
Appendix B................................................................................................................................. 103
Appendix C................................................................................................................................. 106
Appendix D................................................................................................................................. 107

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Priority Areas for the Development in Higher Education .............................................. 14
Table 2: Survey Participants Demographics - Positions Held, Type of a Higher Education
Institution ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 3: Survey Participants Demographics - Educational Background and Professional
Experience..................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 4: Interview Participants Demographics - Gender, Areas of Responsibility, Type of
University...................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 5: Thematic Findings.......................................................................................................... 54
Table 6: Evidence Based Recommendations for Practice ............................................................ 81

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Types of Training You Had Related to Your Current Role .......................................... 56
Figure 2: Frequency of Trainings Related to Your Job Organized by Your Employer................ 57
Figure 3: Skills Administrators Lack and Experience Difficulties with when Fulfilling Their Job
Duties............................................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 4: Satisfaction Level with Training Opportunities and Support Provided by
an Employer.................................................................................................................................. 69

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The higher education landscape globally has been changing under the impact of a variety
of factors, including technology development, more diverse student populations, globalization,
changing job markets and others (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008; World Economic
Forum, 2022). In response to the changing higher education landscape and emerging demands in
the sector, higher education institutions worldwide are changing their structures and principles of
work and putting emphasis on the development of relevant organizational capacity to cope with
changes (Baltaru & Soysal, 2018; Beerkens, 2022).
This study examined how the capacity of university administrators had been developed in
the context of Kazakhstani higher education, which had undergone significant transformation
since the country gained independence in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The
research aimed to understand the challenges university administrators faced in implementing
systematic change and their development needs. One of the goals that the study pursued was to
instigate system-level conceptual changes to the way how universities are managed and
administered. However, considering that a category of administrative staff at universities
encompasses a wide range of employees, in the context of this study, given a limited timeframe,
the focus was on those administrative staff who provide student services.
Statement of the Problem
Since the moment Kazakhstan gained independence in 1991 after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, the country has been investing heavily in human capital development. One of the
major challenges the newly independent Kazakhstan faced was the transition from the planned
economy to a market economy (Larrson, 2010). The country needed professionals who had
relevant skills and knowledge for the transition. One of the ways the government prioritized
human capital development has been through the continuous transformation of the education

2
sector at all levels, including higher education (Huisman et al., 2018). Most of the changes
introduced in the field of higher education have been borrowed from the U.S. and European
models, and included the adoption of the US credit system, signing of the Bologna declaration to
join the European Higher Education Area, expansion of the institutional autonomy and academic
freedom of higher education institutions, internationalization, and other initiatives (OECD,
2017).
The existing literature and research, as well as national development plans and concepts,
primarily focused on the changes with little emphasis on the system-level and organizational
capacity for the implementation of those changes (Concept on the Development of Education of
the Republic of Kazakhstan 2022-2026, 2022; National Development Plan of the Republic of
Kazakhstan 2025, 2021). Although experts indicate human skill sets and resources, along with
formal systems and procedures and organizational culture, values, and norms, as one of the key
components of the concept of the organizational capacity for change (Heckmann et al., 2016;
Judge, 2012), there is no systemic approach in Kazakhstan to train and provide continuous
professional development to administrative staff in higher education (Bayarystanova et al., 2014;
Jantassova et al., 2021; Seitova, 2016). The existing literature suggested that the Ministry of
Science and Higher Education had put effort in the preparation of senior leadership at higher
education institutions and provided relevant training to prepare them for envisioned changes
(Hartley et al., 2016). However, there is a gap in the literature on how capacity development of
university administrative staff, in the context of continuous systematic changes, has been
addressed. The role of professional staff in institutional success and efficiency is undervalued,
especially in the context of ongoing transformation of the higher education system in
Kazakhstan. As a result, there is a dearth of literature and research on developing capacity of
professional staff at Kazakhstani higher education institutions.

3
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore how the capacity of higher education
administrators involved in student services was being developed in the context of ongoing
transformation in the higher education system in Kazakhstan.
The study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity development
programs?
2. What challenges do administrators in higher education face in a changing
organizational setting, if any?
3. What are the implications of higher education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes at an institutional level?
Organizational change (Burke, 2017; Judge, 2012) and human capital development
(Becker, 1962; Rosen, 1976) theories served as guiding theoretical frameworks for the study.
One of the integral aspects of the organizational change theory is organizational or institutional
readiness for the change implementation or evaluation of available resources, including human
resources. For the purposes of this study, capacity development of higher education
administrators was considered through the lens of organizational readiness in the context of
institutional changes. Human capital development theory was mostly applied to this study in its
interpretation from the labor economy perspective. As suggested by Becker (1962) and Rosen
(1976), training and education could improve or accumulate individual workers’ skills or
abilities. In line with this idea, in the context of this research, importance of capacity
development of higher education administrators was examined.
Significance of the Study

4
This study’s findings will contribute to the literature in the field of organizational change
and capacity development for higher education in Kazakhstan. It is expected that the results will
help address the importance of administrative staff in higher education at three different levels—
government level, organizational level, and individual level, and thus lead to a policy outcome in
the field of higher education administration in the country. The study could encourage policy
makers and university senior leadership to put more emphasis on the role of administrative staff
in the successful and efficient implementation of changes in the field of higher education. The
author expected that the study results would draw attention to the need of professionalizing
administrative jobs at universities and provision of relevant degree programs, as well as
continuous professional development opportunities.
Definitions
The following terms were used in this study:
Administrative or professional staff at universities: the terms administrative staff and
professional staff were used interchangeably throughout the study. Administrative staff are those
who occupy non-faculty positions and whose role and responsibility is to manage and oversee (in
part or whole) institutional operations (Bowles, 2022).
Capacity is the ability of people, organizations, and society as a whole to manage their
affairs successfully (OECD, 2006).
Capacity development is the process whereby people, organizations and society as a
whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain capacity over time in order to achieve
development results (OECD, 2006).
Rector is the most senior official in a university, equivalent to a president.
Student services: student services staff focus on student success and growth, ensuring
students are best equipped to thrive in their learning. Other areas that student services may

5
support include campus safety, alumni programs, on-campus housing, career services (Wilfong
& Miller, 2022).
Vice-rector is a deputy to a rector overseeing administrative or academic functions in a
university.
Conclusion
This study aimed to fill gaps in the literature on developing capacity of professional staff
at higher education institutions in Kazakhstan, and sought to understand whether professional
staff, particularly those in the field of student services, were well-prepared to tackle the changing
higher education environment and challenges resulting from these changes. Although the
government of Kazakhstan has continuously prioritized the development of the country’s overall
human capacity through investments in education, there has not been a specific focus on
strengthening the capacity of administrative staff at universities. The existing literature draws on
experiences and practices of the US, European, and British higher education systems,
emphasizing the importance of professional staff and implications of their preparedness for
efficient and successful implementation of changes, as well as in responding to continuing
changes in the education industry. The following chapter will provide an overview of literature
on the capacity development of university professional staff both internationally and
domestically in Kazakhstan. The chapter will also discuss Kazakhstan’s higher education system
and major changes it has experienced since the country gained independence in 1991.

6
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of relevant literature that focuses on international
practices of developing capacity of administrative staff at higher education institutions and the
critical role of university administrative staff in responding to challenges and changes in the field
of higher education. The chapter also provides an understanding of the Kazakhstani higher
education context and major reforms and changes that the system has undergone. It begins with
an overview of the higher education system in Kazakhstan through the review of major reforms
in a chronological order and continues with information on the current state of higher education,
including priorities and challenges.
Overview of The Higher Education System in Kazakhstan
Since gaining independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan
has been pursuing wide-scale reforms in its education system, from pre-school to higher
education. Although Kazakhstan had solid foundations of higher education inherited from the
Soviet system, the government has transformed its higher education system through the adoption
of a number of new laws regulating the education sector and implementation of new policies and
practices. The rationale behind these steps were the transition to a market economy, a desire to
join a group of developed countries, and a dire need for developing human capacity. This section
will provide an overview of Kazakhstan’s higher education system and major reforms and
changes it has experienced, as well as current initiatives and challenges in the system.
Reforms and Changes in Higher Education since Independence
In the first years following independence, the government prioritized development and
building the basis of the legal framework for higher education (OECD, 2017). The Constitution
adopted in 1995 guaranteed compulsory education to all citizens of the country (Ahn et al., 2018,

7
cited in Huisman et al., 2018). The 1993 legislation regulating the higher education sector
provided a framework for the operation of a private sector. As a result, Kazakhstan experienced
the growth of this sector when many private higher education institutions were established.
According to OECD (2007), in the academic year 1996-1997 the share of private universities
was 56.8%, with a growing number of students enrolled. The expansion of the private sector was
also facilitated by the growing interest among the population to be enrolled at higher education
institutions, as people saw it as a guaranteed way to the job market in the newly independent
country that was striving to move away from a planned economy to a market economy.
The Bologna Process
Starting from the 2000s, the country entered the international educational arena
(AllahMorad, 2021). With the aim of increasing student and faculty mobility, in 2004-2005,
Kazakhstan introduced the three-cycle educational model: Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD
degrees (Ahn et al., 2018). It was an initial step on the way to join the Bologna Process, and in
2010, Kazakhstan became the 47th member country to join this collective. This move shaped and
facilitated subsequent changes in higher education, including changes in the structure and
content of the education system. In joining the Bologna Process, the higher education sector
made some fundamental changes, including program design, quality assurance, and the
development of diploma supplements. Kazakhstan, as a signatory of the Bologna Process aiming
to be an active player in the European higher education landscape, follows the European
Standards and Guidelines (ESG) that serve as the overarching framework for quality assurance.
As a result, it required changes in program design, including formulation of learning outcomes,
for instance.
In 2018, eight years after Kazakhstan joined the Bologna Process, the Ministry of
Education and Science adopted the policy that students graduating from universities would also

8
receive the common-European diploma supplement in addition to the main Kazakhstani diploma.
The issuance of the diploma supplement is expected to facilitate student academic mobility and
streamline the processes (Center for Bologna Process and Academic Mobility, 2023).
Additional Reforms
The need to work within a new framework also facilitated and opened up access to
professional development for university staff. There were two broad categories of professional
development programs: one was provided and initiated by the Ministry of Education and
Science, with the invitation of some international experts, to train university faculty and staff to
develop programs and courses in compliance with the Bologna Process, to organize and manage
international offices, and to transfer national academic credits to ECTS credits. The other
category was mostly provided as part of staff mobility programs when Kazakhstani university
staff visited European universities.
First Autonomous University
One of the major highlights of wide-scale reforms was the decision to establish the first
autonomous research university—Nazarbayev University (NU), which accepted its first cohort of
foundation students in the fall of 2010. Funded by the government and operating on the
principles of shared governance under the framework of a special law - Law on the Status of
Nazarbayev University - granting the university institutional autonomy and academic freedom,
NU’s first institutional mandate was to share its experience with the rest of higher education
institutions in the country (Nazarbayev University Strategy 2018-2030). Nazarbayev
University’s independence was unique, since the rest of the higher education institutions in the
country were regulated by the Law on Education and centrally governed by the Ministry,
whereas NU adopted a governance structure similar to that of universities in the United States,

9
with a board of trustees, academic and research councils, faculty senate and other governance
and advisory bodies.
Modernization and Growth
After the establishment of NU, the government decided to embark on another systemwide initiative, expanding autonomy and academic freedom of other higher education institutions
based on the success of Nazarbayev University. As a way of prioritizing the initiative, former
president Nursultan Nazarbayev included this priority in the 100 steps program, which was
adopted in 2015 and aimed to implement five institutional reforms (Astana Times, 2015). The
five institutional reforms included the development of a modern public policy system; ensuring
the rule of law; industrialization and economic growth; a nation united by a common future; and
a transparent accountable state (adilet.kz, 2023). Within the framework of industrialization and
economic growth, the 100 steps program included one step related to the gradual expansion of
autonomy and academic freedom in higher education.
The Ministry of Education and Science (MOES) adopted a comprehensive approach to
the realization of the initiative on the expansion of autonomy and academic freedom. The
preparatory phase included intensive and comprehensive professional development programs for
university top management, particularly rectors and vice-rectors, and to some extent academic
administrators, such as deans, vice-deans, and department chairs. Most of the professional
development programs were provided by Nazarbayev University’s Center for Educational Policy
(NU CEP) in close collaboration with NU’s strategic partner, University of Pennsylvania, at the
request of the MOES (PennAHEAD, 2023). A major part of the realization envisioned
significant changes to the Law on Education and corresponding statutes and regulations. To
develop changes to the Law on Education, the government created a special task force. In 2018,

10
changes to the law were approved and universities started operating within the new legal
framework (European University Association, 2018).
Although Kazakhstan’s higher education sector has experienced extensive modernization
and transformation, there are ongoing, wide-scale initiatives and challenges. Further expansion
of institutional autonomy stays a priority.
Current Higher Education Initiatives and Challenges
This section will provide an overview of ongoing initiatives in higher education in
Kazakhstan and accompanying challenges. President Tokayev, first elected in 2019, continued
the former President Nazarbayev’s agenda on prioritizing education as a key driver in human
capital development and one of the major tools in social and economic development of the
country. Kazakhstan seeks to be one of the top 30 countries in the world.
Overview of the Current Higher Education System
At the beginning of the academic year 2022-2023, there were 84 private and 32 public
higher education institutions in Kazakhstan (National Bureau of Statistics, 2023). The total
number of students enrolled in higher education institutions country-wide was 578,200 of which
37% were funded by the government through state educational grants. State educational grants
are merit-based scholarships annually awarded to students who achieve a certain score in the
Unified National Testing (test result thresholds depend on the chosen subject). State grant
holders can study either at public universities or private universities. For the 2022-23 academic
year, private universities enrolled 77.5% of all students, with 36,400 faculty. In 2022,
universities graduated 188,000 people at different levels. Universities operate on the Bologna
three-level cycle of four-year undergraduate degree programs, one- and two-year master’s degree
programs, and three+-year PhD programs.

11
One of the key aspects in President Tokayev’s agenda in relation to higher education is
ensuring access to quality higher education through diversification of funding approaches, as
currently most of the existing government scholarships are merit-based, opening branch
campuses of leading foreign universities, as well as a gradual increase of government
scholarships (Tokayev, 2021; Tokayev, 2022).
The Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MSHE), a new ministry established in
2022 after dividing the former Ministry of Education and Science into two ministries (the other
one is the Ministry of Enlightenment), identified seven key priorities in order to implement
President Tokayev’s agenda, as well as to continue the implementation of the initiatives set
earlier (Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2019; Nurbek, 2023).
The first key area is accessibility of high-quality higher education. One of the challenges
identified by the government is the expected growth in the number of students. According to
estimates of the MSHE (2023), in the last 20 years, the enrollment of young people aged 18-22
in higher education increased from 37.8 to 64.1%. Along with the growing student population,
there will be a growing demand for government scholarships. The government must make
amendments to its current funding approach so that the constrained financial resources are
allocated more efficiently. According to OECD (2017), state grants that are allocated by merit
are allocated disproportionately and may support those who could study without public subsidy;
this approach represents an inefficient use of resources.
The second priority is a more advanced approach to training professionals, so that
educational programs respond to the needs of the labor market. Another approach is the
promotion of lifelong learning through the development and adoption of relevant mechanisms to
introduce and recognize certificate programs and stackable credentials (Decree of the
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2021).

12
Another key priority is digitalization of higher education, which has been on the higher
education agenda for a relatively long period of time and has proven its importance since the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some progress has been made in developing collaborations
with Coursera for Campus in 2022, but a lot more needs to be accomplished within this initiative
(Nurbek, 2023). Universities need to develop online educational content that is demanded for
several purposes, including provision of flexibility for tertiary level students and support of
lifelong learners interested in short-term courses and less structured programs.
The fourth priority is internationalization of higher education, which includes one new
task: opening branch campuses of leading foreign universities. The Ministry achieved significant
progress in building partnerships with and attracting to Kazakhstan well-renowned universities,
including the University of Arizona, Michigan State University, Heriot-Watt University,
Russia’s National Research Nuclear University, and others. However, one of the persistent
challenges in internationalization of higher education is attracting international students, both
degree-seeking and exchange students (Center for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility,
2023). Although Kazakhstan is among the top ten countries in the world for sending students
abroad, with 89,292 students enrolled in foreign universities in 2019 (Campus France, 2022), the
number of incoming international students was only 30,000 in 2021, with the majority of them
coming from the Commonwealth of Independent Countries (Ministry of Education and Science,
2021).
The fifth priority is the development of academic and research infrastructure, as most of
the existing physical infrastructure was inherited from the Soviet period and needs to be changed
in compliance with the needs of the ongoing modernization of the system. According to MSHE
(2023), despite the challenges related to the lack of land for construction of new dormitories,

13
some solutions have been found, such as the development and strengthening of public-private
partnerships and private investment for the building of residential spaces.
The sixth key area is the development of the national quality assurance model that entails
changes in external and internal assessment systems. The overarching purpose is to become a
high-performing system through the implementation of a culture of continuous quality
enhancement and transparency to maintain public trust (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007; OECD,
2018).
Another priority is further expansion and development of higher education institutions’
autonomy, including the introduction of corporate governance, along with new approaches to
evaluate university leaders’ performance and increasing their accountability (Nurbek,
2023). Further plans also include changes to staffing structure, professional development of
academic staff, and introduction of audit, compliance, and risk management services (Decree of
the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2019).
Successful implementation of large-scale system changes will require relevant human
capacity. In their study of Kazakhstani universities’ transition to autonomy, Chekmareva et al.
(2016) indicated that building capacity must be the main focus for systems or organizations that
face crisis or changes, as in the case of Kazakhstan’s higher education. International studies of
transformation in the higher education landscape have also demonstrated the critical role of
university staff in responding to challenges and needs emerging as a result of the transformation
(Holzweiss et al., 2019; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Whitchurch, 2006).

14
Table 1
Priority Areas for the Development in Higher Education
Priority areas for the development in higher education
Expanding accessibility of high-quality higher education
A more advanced approach to training professionals to meet the needs of
job market
Digitalization of higher education
Internationalization of higher education
Development of academic and research infrastructure
Development of the national quality assurance model
Expansion and development of higher education institutions’ autonomy
Capacity Development for Higher Education Administrators
A rapidly changing higher education landscape creates both challenges and opportunities
for universities. Technology, digitalization, increasingly diverse student populations, and
globalization are some of the factors that shape higher education in Kazakhstan. Another
important factor impacting the higher education landscape are the increasing government
regulations and requirements for accountability (Bossu et al., 2019). As a result, there have been
profound changes in what is expected from higher education institutions as organizations. In
response to transformation in the higher education sector that became “more competitive, more
business and market oriented,” as suggested by Wild and Wooldridge (2009) the roles of
“professional administrative and support staff” became “more pivotal” (cited in Lewis, 2014, pp.
43-50).
With the emergence of a wide range of new non-academic roles at universities, experts
have sought terms to describe non-academic staff. Graham (2012) identified a number of terms
commonly used by experts, higher education institutions, and government bodies that include,

15
“non-academic staff, general staff, administrative staff, support staff” (cited in Bossu and Brown,
2019, p. 3). According to Szekeres (2011), in an Australian context, administrative staff covers a
wide range of roles, including high level managerial and leadership roles, administrative
functions, student and faculty support, librarians and laboratory staff, and those who provide IT
and infrastructure services (cited in Bossu et al., 2019, p. 4). In this paper, the titles of
administrative and professional staff are used interchangeably to denote university employees
responsible for delivering a broad range of projects in areas of student services, human resources,
global relations, finance, admissions and enrollment management, as well as economic planning
and finance personnel contributing to the implementation of the institutional strategy and
delivery of everyday operations (Whitchurch, 2006).
Capacity Building
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2006) defined capacity as “the
ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (p.
4). Capacity development is understood as the process whereby people, organizations and society
as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time. Oftentimes, the
phrases capacity development and capacity building are used interchangeably. However, in this
study, the phrase capacity development is used, as the word, building, suggests, that a process
starts from scratch without any prior basis.
A similar definition of capacity development is suggested in the Capacity Development
Framework developed by the Commonwealth Foundation (2014), where capacity development is
considered as the process of change through which “abilities to perform functions, solve
problems and set and achieve goals” are developed at individual, organizational, institutional and
system levels (p. 1).

16
Training Higher Education Administrators
In the global higher education arena, the importance of administrative staff in ensuring
institutional effectiveness and an institutions’ ability to tackle an increasingly challenging
environment has been discussed for a relatively long time. Alongside, experts in this field have
also indicated the necessity to provide administrative staff with adequate relevant learning and
development opportunities. For example, some of the leading universities in the US had schools
of education dating back to the 19th century, with the Teachers College at Columbia University
being the oldest, established in 1887 (Columbia University Teachers College). Faculties or
institutes of education (the commonly accepted term in the British context) at some of the
leading universities in the UK date back to the early 1900. The Institute of Education of the
University College London was founded in 1902, and the Department of Education of the
University of Oxford was established in 1919 (University College London Institute of Education;
University of Oxford Department of Education).
The initial purpose of those schools was to train teachers, with a primary focus on
pedagogy. It remained the case until the early 20th century when confrontation between two
large groups for control of American education took place—between those who advocated for
“pedagogical progressivism” and those who advocated for “administrative progressivism”
(Labaree, 2005, p. 276). While pedagogical progressivism was about teaching and learning in the
classroom, administrative progressivism focused on governance, organization, and purpose of
the curriculum (Labaree, 2005). Administrative progressivists’ arguments were founded on
utilitarian views and aimed at restructuring education in a way to respond to the needs of the
economy and society. Thus, administrative progressivists won the confrontation, and their views
shaped the way schools operated and at the same time, in the early 20th century, according to

17
Bates (2010), universities in the United States started offering formal training on educational
administration.
Another major wave of changes in the 20th century started in the 1960s, when newly
independent African and Asian countries aimed to expand their educational offerings, which
resulted in changes in internal organizational settings and external environment (Carron, 1992).
As a result, professionals employed in the field of education faced new challenges in planning
and managing changing education systems which then required changes in the way these
professionals were trained and prepared (Carron, 1992). Goldhammer et al. (1967) indicated the
importance of adequate and proper training for educational administrators to be able to revitalize
the education sector of that time and defined “the continuous in-service training” of educational
administrators as possibly one of the “greatest challenges” (p. 157). During this period, the
number of postgraduate programs on educational administration reached 125 globally (Sergil &
Çağanağa, 2017).
A decade later, in their large-scale research of professional development needs of
administrators in higher education in the Canadian context, Konrad et al. (1976) identified that
the most crucial needs were related to leadership, program development, as well as issues of
evaluation, staff motivation and planning. Among the findings of this study, one of the greatest
importance was that administrators who did not have pre-service degree training demonstrated
greater development needs than those who had degree training.
Towards the end of the 20th century, the education landscape was experiencing another
wave of changes, with implications for planning and administration. Carron (1992) identified the
expansion of the education sector, concerns about the quality of education, financial constraints,
increasing diversification of educational demand and supply, impact of technological
developments, claims for sustainability, and the search for greater efficiency in management and

18
implementation as the issues shaping the sector. These factors resulted in a growing and
diversified need for training in educational planning and management with implications for
methods of training (Carron, 1992).
Professionalization of University Staff
In 1998, at the World Conference on Higher Education in the 21st Century in Paris,
participants discussed the future of higher education institutions. In his paper published as part of
the Conference discussions, Fielden (1998) emphasized the centrality of staff development in
tackling challenges to be faced by higher education institutions and in ensuring the quality of
higher education. He argued that the effectiveness of higher education institutions heavily
depended on the quality of their staff in the same way as in other people-centered institutions.
More importantly, he indicated the importance of developing administrative staff who could play
a key role in supporting students and the overall learning environment.
The period from 2000 onwards has been characterized by the growing complexity of
higher education institutions around the world when their missions stopped prioritizing
knowledge pursuit and shifted towards active engagement with broader groups of stakeholders in
wider society, focusing on the real contribution to economic and social development (Baltaru &
Soysal, 2018). This led to the expansion and emergence of new roles at universities and
subsequent increase of a number of administrative staff. Although the existing literature
demonstrates how the role of professional staff at universities has strengthened and diversified in
response to the changing higher education environment, there are experts who argue that
administrative staff have not received sufficient scholarly attention and their contribution to the
success of universities has not been acknowledged (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Regan, Dollard,
& Banks, 2014 cited in Gander, 2018; Rhoades, 2009 cited in Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017).

19
Characteristics of Administrative Staff
Development experts have attempted to identify key characteristics of administrators in
higher education and skills and competencies they must possess. For example, Fielden (1998)
described four broad categories of new competencies required of administrative staff—
information technology skills, efficiency and effectiveness in all administrative processes,
customer sensitivity, and flexibility (p. 9). In later studies, experts expanded and updated a list of
competencies for professional staff at universities (Burkard et al., 2005; Cooper et al., 2016;
Dickerson et al., 2011; Kuk et al., 2007; Morris & Laipple, 2015 cited in Holzweiss et al., 2019).
The list included finance management, planning, assessment, relating theory to practice, critical
thinking, collaboration, managing conflicts, and written communication skills.
Education and Preparation of Educational Administrators
In response to the increasing need for preparing for new administrative roles in the
changing higher education landscape, as well as training for existing roles experiencing changes
under the influence of increasing complexity in higher education institutions’ operation,
governments and higher education systems worldwide have developed and provided different
methods of preparation and training. Despite attempts taken at national and institutional levels,
experts criticized the preparation of educational administrators. Murphy (1984) pointed out that
in the European context, the preparation of administrators had not been much developed. In
1998, at the World Conference on Higher Education, experts argued that there was no adequate
preparation for administrative and support staff and the existing opportunities lacked consistency
and were more of an ad hoc nature. Nevertheless, Schultz (1968) identified three major
approaches to the preparation of university administrators which are currently still applicable—
formal study, in-service programs, and informal study (p. 390). Formal training includes degree
programs at a graduate level, as well as postdoctoral programs. In-service training includes

20
different types of conferences, workshops, professional networks and associations, and aims to
upgrade skills of higher education administrators. Informal study includes self-study with a goal
to upgrade one’s knowledge and skills.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in academic year 2019-2020,
there were 3,982 universities in the US. The US News and World Report Ranking of best
education schools includes 456 education schools in the US, of which 42 offered programs in
education administration and 36 offered programs specifically in higher education
administration. In the UK, in 2018-2019, there were 164 universities (Statista, 2023) with more
than 80 of them having schools or programs in education (The Guardian, 2023). Data show that
formal degree programs are well-developed in other countries.
In-service training is expected to be mostly provided and supported by an employer,
namely, higher education institutions that employ administrators. A review of websites of the
Russell Group universities in the UK conducted by the author in 2023 revealed that 18 of 24
universities explicitly communicated organizational commitment to the development of staff at
all levels through a variety of offerings. In the US and European higher education contexts, one
of the approaches to in-service training is through professional associations and organizations,
including regular conferences in the chosen field and scheduled trainings delivered via
academies or institutes within such organizations.
Some major examples include the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (NASPA), with a focus particularly on student affairs administrators in higher
education. NASPA was founded in 1919 and since then developed into a community of 15,000
professionals and 1,200 institutions globally (NASPA, 2023). The association provides a
platform for networking and sharing experience and knowledge through its annual conference
and other events, knowledge communities, as well as published resources. NASPA goes beyond

21
provision of professional development and platform for networking, as it also advocates for
public policies to create a welcoming and supportive environment in the United States
contributing towards the development of international education.
Another example is the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA),
established in 1979. It unites more than 12,000 members, representing the United States and
several other countries. NACADA (2023) promotes and supports quality academic advising at
universities through a wide range of instruments including an annual conference, different types
of institutes depending on the level of participant’s responsibility (campus-level or unit-level),
regular webinars, and published resources.
The Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) specifically unites
administrators involved in planning processes at universities. SCUP (2023) was founded in 1966
and since then has gathered more than 5,000 members from 33 countries. Interestingly, the
Society makes distinction between different types of planning within higher education
institutions and provides support in academic planning, strategic planning, diversity, equity, and
inclusion planning, campus planning, institutional effectiveness planning, and resource planning
(Society for College and University Planning, 2023).
In the European higher education area, the European Association for International
Education (EAIE), established in 1989, provides a platform for sharing expertise, networking,
and resources for professionals in the field of international education, with a particular focus on
advancing internationalization in higher education (European Association for International
Education). EAIE (2023), like other similar professional organizations, provides capacity
development through the annual conference, training opportunities, library of resources, and
professional communities. Professional communities are developed based on areas of

22
specialization such as enrollment management, student mobility, strategic planning, alumni
engagement, marketing, and other areas.
Literature suggests that in many cases roles and responsibilities of administrators in the
field of higher education have been changing in response to the changing higher education
landscape; as a consequence, approaches to the preparation of higher education administrators
depends on what is required of them.
Developing Capacity of Administrators for Higher Education
Although Kazakhstan has prioritized human capital development through system-wide
changes in the field of higher education, this has mostly occurred through fragmented training
(Huisman et al., 2018; Jantassova et al., 2021; OECD, 2017).
Guided by human capital development theory in the early years of independence,
Kazakhstan’s leadership made a strategic decision to invest in the development of professionals
needed for the country's transition from a planned economy to a market economy and, in general,
to build new institutions and lead reforms. With this aim, in 1993, the government approved the
Bolashak (meaning “future”) Scholarship Program to send talented youth to pursue degreed at
leading universities worldwide (Center for International Programs, 2023). At the initial stage, the
program funded training in the fields of finance, economics, law, business, public administration
and other subject areas needed for the development of the country. As the country was going
through changes and adjusting its priorities, the priorities of the Bolashak program changed
accordingly. For instance, in 2011, the government decided to stop funding undergraduate
programs and reallocate funds to the newly established Nazarbayev University. Nazarbayev
University aimed to deliver degree programs of the same quality and standard as those delivered
by leading international universities, but at a lower cost. As of today, the Bolashak Scholarship
has been awarded to more than 15,000 people, of which close to 12,000 successfully completed

23
their studies. The majority of Bolashak alumni completed their studies in humanities and social
sciences (55%), including programs in educational administration, leadership, or management,
and one-third received their degrees in engineering majors (Center for International Programs,
2023). According to Vice-Minister of Science and Higher Education, Kuanysh Yergaliyev
(2022), more than 1000 professionals have been trained for the education sector and Bolashak
alumni played a key role in launching strategic educational projects such as Nazarbayev
University, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, and Astana IT University. Unfortunately, there is
no publicly available data on the exact breakdown of how many people have been trained
specifically for higher education professional jobs.
In 2020, Kazakhstan’s President K. Tokayev announced that annually, 500 Bolashak
scholarships would be allocated to scientists (researchers) to have internships in some of the
leading research centers around the world (Tokayev, 2020). Although the government has
identified engineering education as a priority, the top subject area for researchers has been
education, with 33% of the scholars (Center for International Programs, 2023). Since the
initiative was announced in 2020, 416 scholarships have been awarded, of which 357 were given
to university staff. However, it is not specified what types of university staff are included.
Throughout the development of the Bolashak Scholarship and its continuous transformation in
response to the needs of the country’s labor market and development priorities, there has not
been a specific focus on the development of professionals for the higher education sector.
Engineering and technical education has been often referred to as a priority at different stages of
the program development.
Despite continuous large-scale changes in the field of higher education, the current statedeveloped and approved strategic and conceptual documents do not include or prioritize higher
education workforce development (National Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan

24
2025, 2021; Concept on the Development of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2022-
2026, 2022). According to the National Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2025
(the National Plan), quality education is one of the national priorities that covers all levels of
education and includes six objectives. The first objective focuses on the expansion and equality
in education and aims to promote lifelong learning and increase access to education. The second
objective is to create favorable conditions and environments for learning where the primary
focus is on the physical infrastructure of educational organizations. The third objective is
concerned with increasing the quality of education where one of the important aspects is
continuity between different levels of education and updated content. Increasing efficiency in
education governance and funding is the fourth objective that strives to promote partnership with
private investors and establish endowment funds. The fifth objective is the development of
human capital for the digital economy where one of the priorities determined by the government
is preparing professionals with expertise in big data, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and the
internet of things. The last objective is strengthening the competitiveness of Kazakhstani
research in the global context and increasing its contribution to the socioeconomic development
of the country. Across the six objectives, only the last one includes activities related to
implementing strategic HR-management to develop research capacity, strengthening the talent
pool and development of leaders, and support of young scholars.
However, the lower-level document developed by the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education and Ministry of Enlightenment that aims to provide more detailed steps toward the
achievement of goals prescribed by the National Plan does not include specific indicators on how
the strategic HR-management will be implemented and how talent pools at higher education
institutions will be strengthened (Concept on the Development of Education of the Republic of
Kazakhstan 2022-2026, 2022). One of the issues the Concept and most of the existing studies

25
have emphasized is that rapid changes in the higher education sector around the globe have
caused a crisis that requires the development of new skills by university top-management; top
managers of Kazakhstani higher education institutions may not have a sufficient level of
preparation to tackle these new challenges. As a result, one of the indicators in the action plan on
the implementation of the Concept is the organization of professional development programs for
university top-management. In the framework of one of the major transformations in the
Kazakhstani higher education sector, adoption of the law on expansion of institutional autonomy
and academic freedom at universities, training of university leadership remains an important
aspect of state initiatives, although it had been prioritized during the transformation planning
stage and some of the first large-scale professional development programs started in 2012 (State
Program for the Education Development 2011-2020). It has been five years since the law was
approved; however, the state initiatives have not been considering capacity development of
university professional staff as one of the core elements in the success of ongoing
transformations in higher education. As the study by Hartley et al. (2016) on autonomy in
Kazakhstan revealed, the implementation of major reforms in Kazakhstan had been influenced
by three factors, such as pre-existing structures inherited from Soviet times, cultural norms and
beliefs, and the environment where universities operate (p. 287). All three factors directly impact
and involve university administrative staff who, according to the study outcomes, realized the
importance of changes, but at the same time were anxious and had been struggling with the
reforms’ implementation (Hartley et al., 2016). However, the current Concept still only mentions
the importance of developing an institutional policy on managing human resources and talents,
and states that universities will continue transitioning to a new system of job titles according to
international standards, new model of staffing plan, and faculty development.

26
How Organizational Structures of Universities Reflect Functions of Administrative Staff
Although the Concept discussed transition to new job titles, the brief review of
organizational structures of a number of public and private universities in Kazakhstan revealed
that there had not been major structural changes in terms of titles and names of units, particularly
of those providing student services. For example, all reviewed universities have vice-rectors for
social work or social development, or educational work (vospitatelnaya rabota), but not for
student affairs or student services. Titles of structural units dealing with students do not reflect
their service orientation or a focus on the development of the student as a whole (European
University College Association, 2023). As opposed to the current approaches, student affairs in
Kazakhstani higher education institutions focus more on students’ upbringing and to some extent
on control of student behavior. Some titles include educational and social work and youth policy,
youth affairs. The term “student services” in universities in Kazakhstan means issuance of
various confirmation letters or certificates with large student service centers, which are
analogous of public service centers. Despite the fact that the Concept identified the absence of
alumni relations mechanisms at universities as one of the current problems, websites of the
universities do not contain sections on units responsible for alumni relations.
Only a few universities in Kazakhstan offer master’s programs in educational
management and leadership: Turan Astana University; KIMEP; AlmaU; Nazarbayev University.
The national classifier of directions of training of specialists with higher and postgraduate
education (2020), which defines areas and directions in which universities train students, does
not list educational administration, management, and leadership.
There is a dearth of literature on building and developing capacity for higher education
administration, aside from some specific recommendations in country reports by international
organizations, or rare publications with a focus on faculty and research capacity development.

27
Some of the existing studies focus mostly on developing capacity for university
internationalization and Bologna Process and professional development of university leadership
for the work in the context of expanded autonomy and academic freedom (Hartley et al., 2015;
Lee & Kuzhabekova, 2019; Monobayeva & Howard, 2015; Seitova, 2016). Authors across
studies highlighted the lack of a systematic approach to building and developing capacity and
their importance in the overall development of human resources (Bayarystanova et al., 2014;
Jantassova et al., 2021; Seitova, 2016).
Kazakhstani experts, in line with their international colleagues (Ryttberg & Geschwind,
2017; Gander, 2018) recognize the importance of higher education administrators in the efficient
implementation of educational reforms and consider “training of managers in education” as one
of the problems that may hinder the efficiency (Bayarystanova et al., 2014, p. 427). In the
context of internationalization that has been one of the major change drivers in Kazakhstan’s
higher education system and whose role was reinforced when Kazakhstan became a signatory to
the Bologna Process in 2010, studies revealed the lack of developing capacity to respond to the
needs of internationalization (Jantassova et al., 2021).
Challenges Faced by University Staff in Kazakhstan
In addition to the lack of English language proficiency, or its complete absence,
university staff do not possess some other necessary competencies. A study on capacity-building
for internationalization at one of the universities in Kazakhstan found that the university
employees’ qualifications were not in full compliance with international standards (Jantassova et
al., 2021). Moreover, the administrative staff demonstrated low levels of digital competencies.
Another study on capacity of international offices came out with contradicting results—English
language proficiency was considered both an advantage of participants and a challenge (Sparks
et al., 2015).

28
In the framework of building research capacity in Kazakhstan, Lee and Kuzhabekova
(2019) identified the lack of English language knowledge as one of the barriers. In addition, their
study respondents pointed “gaps in foundational knowledge” as a challenge (Lee &
Kuzhabekova, 2019, p. 352). These two items may be considered critical factors that hinder the
advancement of research both at institutional and national level, since English has become the
language of choice for international research. As stated by Rao (2018), many high-quality
research journals are published in English and often the lack of good academic and research
writing skills becomes a reason for rejection of research papers. Moreover, because of the lack of
English language proficiency, researchers do not have access to results of the most current
research conducted worldwide.
Seitova’s (2016) research on university faculty development in Kazakhstan also reported
the lack of English language proficiency as one of the impediments in their work. Similar to
researchers, faculty do not have direct access to up-to-date information in their respective fields
and are heavily dependent on translation from English to one of the local languages, which is
Kazakh or Russian (Seitova, 2016).
Although the abovementioned studies focused on different categories of university staff,
the outcomes in terms of challenges faced by the research participants and competencies they
lacked were overlapping. There were also similarities in emphasizing a critical role university
faculty and administrators play in the implementation of reforms in the higher education sector in
Kazakhstan. Seitova (2016) argued that Kazakhstan's ability to eliminate its dependence on
production and export of unprocessed natural resources depended on “updated professional
development and capacity of higher education faculty members, researchers and academia,”
whom she considered as “the driving force” in the implementation of strategic goals (p. 11094).
However, she did not consider the significant role that university professional staff played in the

29
implementation of any strategically important initiatives. “Unhelpful administrative staff” and
bureaucracy were identified as one of the major barriers to research in the study conducted by
Lee and Kuzhabekova (2019, p. 352). Roots of this barrier may be hidden in the lack of adequate
levels of training for administrative staff that would develop knowledge and skills required to
support academic and research staff at universities. Nazarbayev University, the country’s
flagship institution, has been developed in compliance with international standards and practices,
and mostly employs administrative staff with at least a western master’s degree; but the
university is still searching for ways to eliminate the bureaucracy that is in many cases a result of
misunderstanding between academic and administrative staff (Nazarbayev University Strategy
2018-2030, 2023). It is noteworthy that the strategy of Nazarbayev University recognizes the
importance of “the development and retention of high-quality faculty, researchers, and of topnotch administrators” for the university’s future growth and development (p. 33).
Other researchers have identified similar outcomes in studies of the capacity of university
faculty, researchers and administrators (Bayarystanova et al., 2014; Jantassova et al., 2021; Lee
& Kuzhabekova, 2019; Seitova, 2016). The conclusion is that systematic and consistent training
and professional development opportunities should be implemented to develop the capacity of
faculty and administrative staff at universities. Jantassova et al. (2021) suggested the
organization of training and workshops for administrative staff (involved in internationalization)
as one of the strategies to address weaknesses identified in their SWOT analysis. Whereas
participants in the study by Sparks et al. (2015) proposed the establishment of a national
association of University International Officers as one of the possible ways to develop
professional capacity. This reinforces the need among professionals to be united under the
framework of a professional network that will provide a platform for sharing experiences and
best practices, discuss challenges and search for solutions, and develop proposals on enhancing

30
respective areas of specialization. Such associations could serve as an effective tool for
continuous professional development and determining quality standards in a given field.
However, development of associations for higher education professionals is an underdeveloped
concept in Kazakhstan. While the US and Europe have a long history and tradition of creating
and developing professional networks and associations, this is not yet the case for Kazakhstan's
higher education sector. Data on officially established and operating associations of higher
education professionals have revealed only few examples, including associations initiated by
Nazarbayev University. Although these associations do not focus exclusively on university
administrative staff, they have been facilitating the development of a culture of professional
networks and their value for professionals in a given field. One of the associations initiated by
the Nazarbayev University Department of Turkic Studies is the International Association of
Teachers of Kazakh Language, which was established in 2018 with the aim to collect the best
international experiences in language education, as well as to improve the theoretical and
pedagogical bases related to problems of the Kazakh language (International Association of
Teachers of Kazakh Language). Another example is the High School Career and College
Counselors' Association of Kazakhstan, which was established in 2020 as a result of discussions
at the annual Seminar of High School Career and College Counselors of the Republic of
Kazakhstan organized by the Nazarbayev University Admissions Department. Nazarbayev
University Graduate School of Education initiated and established the Kazakhstan Education
Research Association (KERA) in 2014, to promote educational research and improve the quality
of educational thought and practice in Kazakhstan. The initial idea of creating such an
association in Kazakhstan belongs to Professor David Bridges from the University of Cambridge
who has been involved in many research projects in the field of education in Kazakhstan
(Kazakhstan Education Research Association). KERA developed the first ever Code of Ethics

31
for educational researchers in Kazakhstan that was adopted in 2020. The document integrates
international standards and approaches to the ethical regulation of research, as well as legislative
requirements of Kazakhstan.
Existing studies on building and developing capacity of different categories of staff
involved in the higher education sector demonstrate the importance of academic and
administrative staff in the implementation of reforms and changes at institutional and state levels,
as well as the importance of consistent and systematic adequate training and professional
development to equip these staff with up-to-date knowledge and skills to be able to make the
implementation smooth and efficient. As stated by Whitchurch (2019), pressure on academic and
administrative staff often comes from institutional initiatives that are in turn developed in
response to market and community needs. In a broader context of studying Kazakhstan’s overall
state capacity, technical capacity represents a particular interest in relation to this study
(Cummings, 2014). Technical capacity represents the intellectual resources that a state has
including internal or external expertise and experience that may be involved in policy-making
processes. The study outcomes demonstrated that Kazakhstan “referred to weak technical
capacities” (Cummings, 2014, p. 700). Another study on educational modernization in
Kazakhstan (Monobayeva & Howard, 2014) stated that many educational reforms, including the
implementation of the Bologna Process, were “hindered by the absence of required structural and
cultural elements” and concluded that considering Kazakhstan’s specific context impacted by the
Soviet past, effectiveness of reforms might be supported by relevant “professional cultures and
managerial capacities” (p. 151).
As Kazakhstan is moving towards further modernization of its higher education system to
increase its quality and competitiveness, the government should seriously consider the
introduction of new ways to the training of university administrative staff.

32
Theoretical Framework
Two theoretical frameworks were used to study how the capacity of administrative staff
at higher education institutions in Kazakhstan had been developed in the context of ongoing
changes in the field of higher education. The first was human capital theory and the second was
organizational change theory.
Human Capital Theory
According to Sweetland (1996), theoretical and empirical foundations of human capital
theory were established in the 1960s. The theory suggested that investments in the development
of human capital results in economic benefits for individuals and wider society (Sweetland,
1996). Becker (1962) and Rosen (1976) initially formulated human capital theory and argued
that individual workers have a set of skills or abilities which they can improve or accumulate
through training and education. He argued that human capital had a significant impact on growth,
and countries without much human capital cannot manage physical capital effectively.
Moreover, it is important for economic growth that physical capital and human capital rise
together.
In the context of labor economics, human capital is considered as a set of skills or
characteristics that increase a worker’s productivity (London School of Economics, 2023). For
this study, theories developed by Becker and Schultz and Nelson-Phelpz were adopted. Becker
(1962) viewed human capital as directly useful in the production process. He argued that human
capital increases a worker’s productivity in all tasks varying across different tasks, organizations,
and situations. Schultz and Nelson-Phelpz (1966) viewed human capital as the ability to adapt.
According to this view, human capital is especially useful in adapting to a changing
environment. Human capital theory also emphasizes the positive impact of education and
training on worker’s future income (Becker, 1964). However, in the context of this study, the

33
human capital theory was applied primarily from the perspective of increasing worker’s
productivity and the quality of labor (Yamoah, 2014).
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2017) argued that human
capital represented a foundational level of organization’s intellectual capital and reviewed the
role of human capital at individual and organizational levels. Whereas, at the individual level,
human capital is considered through the focus on an employee and their job performance, at the
organizational level the focus is on strengthening organizational capabilities. CIPD (2017)
suggested that investments in employee training have impacts on employee earnings, job
performance and productivity, satisfaction, and commitment, that in turn have a direct impact on
an organization and build its competitive advantage.
Robertson et al. (2020) looked at human capital theory more from an individual
perspective in the context of career development. The study examined the importance of
education and “staying in school” to gain more human capital for consecutive career success
(Robertson et al., 2020).
The literature review emphasized the importance of administrative staff of universities in
responding to challenges of the changing higher education environment and demands of
stakeholders. In the context of Kazakhstan, based on the available literature and the researcher’s
professional experience in the field of higher education, the researcher assumed that at the
national level, as well as organizational level, there were no systematic approaches and
investments in the development of administrative staff’s capacity to increase their productivity.
Organizational Change Theory
Kurt Lewin is considered a founder of organizational change theory (Alase, 2017).
Within the broader theory of organizational change, experts in the field of change management
emphasize the critical role of organizational readiness to implement the changes (Weiner, 2009).

34
Weiner (2009) considered organizational readiness for change as organizational members' shared
commitment to change implementation and shared self-efficacy in relation to change
implementation. The higher the organizational readiness for change, the more likely
organizational members are to initiate change, contribute greater effort, demonstrate greater
persistence, and display more cooperative behavior. In other words, organizational members
demonstrate higher levels of motivation (Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda, 2011). The organizational
readiness aspect of the organizational change theory is closely connected with Becker's view on
human capital (Becker, 1964).
For the purposes of this study, the aspect of individual self-efficacy presented a particular
interest. It is critical that university professional staff believe they can successfully accomplish
tasks set as part of the organizational changes. In this regard, the study aimed to understand what
challenges related to knowledge and skills administrative staff face in their work.
Application to the Study
While both human capital theory and organizational change theory can be applied at
multiple levels, such as national and organizational, human capital theory can also be applied at
the individual level. Existing studies on the implementation of state level reforms in Kazakhstan,
as part of transitioning from a planned economy to a market economy, argue that professional
capacity building is required for effective implementation (Cummings & Norgaard, 2004;
Monobayeva & Howard, 2015; Seitova, 2016). Cummings and Norgaard (2004) looked at the
concept of overall state capacity through four dimensions: ideational, political, technical, and
implementational. In the context of the given study, technical capacity was of a primary interest.
Technical capacity presents the intellectual and organizational resources of a state that includes
internal or external expertise or experience needed to develop “coherent, viable and politically
feasible policies” (Cummings & Norgaard, 2004). Technical capacity is concerned with, and

35
evaluated by, the quality of workers, in part by their level of education and professional training.
Reforms in the field of higher education are an intrinsic part of wider reforms in the country and
it is important to consider administrative staff’s capacity development as one of the integral
stages of the organizational change process.
Conclusion
The review of literature in this chapter revealed two key factors—the critical role of
university administrative staff in responding to changing higher education environment and
implementing changes at an organizational level and the importance of providing systematic
adequate training to administrative staff to develop their individual, as well as the overall
organizational capacity. In the context of Kazakhstan, there is a gap in the literature and the
available literature primarily focuses on the reforms and changes without considering the role of
organizational capacity.

36
Chapter Three: Methods
A rapidly changing higher education landscape creates both challenges and opportunities
for universities. Technology, digitalization, increasingly diverse student populations, and
globalization are some of the factors that shape higher education. Another important factor
influencing the higher education landscape are the increasing government regulations and
requirements for accountability (Bossu et al., 2019). As a result, there have been profound
changes in what is expected from higher education institutions. In response to transformation in
the higher education sector, the roles of “professional administrative and support staff” became
“more pivotal” (Wild & Wooldridge, 2009, cited in Lewis, 2014, pp. 43-50). Similarly, the
Kazakhstani higher education sector has been experiencing profound transformation (OECD,
2017). However, little attention has been given to the development of the capacity of
administrators in the field of higher education.
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of capacity development for higher
education administrators, particularly for those involved in student services, in the context of
ongoing transformations and changes happening in the higher education system in Kazakhstan.
The researcher believed that the role of professional staff in institutional success and efficiency
was undervalued, especially in the context of ongoing transformation of the higher education
system in Kazakhstan.
Human capital development and organizational change theories provided a framework for
this study. Concepts of organizational capabilities, capacity development, change
implementation and organizational settings were examined through interviews and a survey in
the context of this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with university vicerectors, and survey data was collected from university administrative staff involved in student
services. A mixed-methods approach was applied to obtain a more comprehensive understanding

37
of the problem, as well as to ensure triangulation (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). While
quantitative data was to provide generalization of the research results, qualitative data helped
discover unseen and unexpected concepts and gain deeper understanding of participants’
perceptions of the topic of interest (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
This chapter discusses the research design of the study, including research questions, data
collection methods, description of the research site, research participants, research design, data
collection and analysis, ethics, and the role of the researcher.
Research Questions
The study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity development
programs?
2. What challenges do administrators in higher education face in a changing
organizational setting, if any?
3. What are the implications of higher education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes at an institutional level?
The first question aimed to help understand how higher education administrators perceive
the existing capacity development programs. The second question explored what challenges
higher education administrators face because of the lack of necessary knowledge and skills in
implementing changes within their organizations. The third question was expected to identify
implications of preparedness of higher education administrators for change implementation.
Organization Overview
This study included administrative staff providing student services in Kazakhstan’s
public and private universities. Staff from career services and student affairs from practically all

38
universities in Kazakhstan whose contacts were available were reached out to via email and
WhatsApp message.
As for interview participants, they were selected based on their accessibility. Six
interviewees represented five different universities —public and private located in the capital
city, big cities, and smaller towns. Each university varied in age, size, and regional
representation. Two out of five institutions focus on teaching students for a particular industry,
while the other three are comprehensive universities offering degrees in a wide range of subject
fields. Despite their differences, these particular universities are chosen for this study because of
their accessibility, as well as to some extent to ensure representation of different types of
universities. Other information is not provided here to maintain universities’ anonymity.
Population and Sample
The population of focus was administrative staff at higher education institutions. Among
this broad category of university employees, the researcher had a particular interest in staff
involved in providing services to students. The units the researcher reached out to for
participation in the survey included student affairs and career services. The rationale for studying
this population was based on the researcher’s professional experience, observations,
communication and discussions with colleagues from the field of higher education, as well as
study of the existing literature and research on developing and building capacity of
administrative staff for higher education. Kazakhstan’s higher education sector has been
experiencing large-scale transformations and changes, but strategies and action plans on
implementation of changes do not consider the critical role that administrative staff at
universities play in the implementation. There are not many degree programs on higher
education management or administration offered by universities in Kazakhstan, professional

39
associations and networks are not developed, and most of the trainings available for
administrative staff are fragmented (Huisman et al., 2018; Jantassova et al., 2021; OECD, 2017).
The approach that was adopted in the study was multilevel sampling, which is when
qualitative and quantitative samples are received from different levels of the population (Johnson
& Christensen, 2015). Mixed sampling designs are also divided into different types depending on
their time orientation—concurrent and sequential (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
There are 120 higher education institutions in Kazakhstan, and it was difficult to survey
administrative staff at all 120 universities. It was hard to approach all of them because of the
limited channels of communication and lack of contact information. There are unfortunately no
professional networks and associations that could be a good platform for communication.
However, the researcher wanted the study results to be generalizable to wider population of
university administrative employees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, the survey was sent
to all administrative staff engaged in student services at almost all universities using simple
random sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
As the researcher was working on the literature review, she started thinking about looking
at the capacity development of administrative staff from additional angle—from the perspective
of university leadership. Thus, in addition to surveying administrative staff, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with vice-rectors from five universities. It helped gain more
understanding of capacity development needs of university administrative staff from a leadership
perspective. The choice of semi-structured interviews was informed by the fact that this
particular format allows more flexibility and an opportunity for a researcher to respond “to
emerging worldview of the respondent” and probably new ideas on the discussed topic (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). Interview participants were selected with the use of convenience
sampling. However, the researcher realized that one of the major disadvantages of the

40
convenience sampling was that results could not be generalized (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Although the researcher knew some of the people she was planning to recruit for the study, she
asked her colleagues to introduce her to vice-rectors with whom they had direct connections or
collaborations, and the researcher also recruited participants from universities other than those
that were initially selected.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The survey and interviews served as the data collection tools in this study. The survey
was conducted among higher education administrators working primarily in student services,
while interviews were conducted with vice-rectors of higher education institutions. The rationale
behind using both a survey and an interview was to ensure triangulation and complementarity
(Maxwell, 2013). Both the survey and interviews were conducted in the Kazakh and Russian
languages.
Survey
The survey was distributed among professional staff at higher education institutions and
collected information on training and capacity development of professional staff at higher
education institutions. The survey data was collected through the Qualtrics platform. There were
17 questions, including close-ended questions and dichotomous, multiple-choice, rating scale
questions, and open-ended questions. The survey started with questions aiming to collect
demographic data. It then continued with questions that collected information on respondents’
pre-service and in-service training, as well as challenges they faced in their work and learning
needs.
The rationale for employing a survey as a data collection tool was to allow to collect data
from as many respondents as possible to allow for generalization (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Moreover, the researcher adopted probability sampling that also supports generalization

41
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Generalization was of high significance in this study, as the
researcher wished to be able to refer to the study results to attract the attention of experts in
Kazakhstani higher education landscape to the problem. The researcher believed that the role of
administrative staff in institutional success and efficiency was undervalued, especially in the
context of ongoing transformation of the higher education system in Kazakhstan.
Questions in the survey were descriptive, as the research questions did not intend to
determine any correlation or causality between variables. Also, the survey intended to collect the
data at one point in time, meaning that it was cross-sectional (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The researcher intentionally avoided the use of many open-ended questions, as openended questions are often considered to result in low response rates and included only two
questions of this type. Thus, the survey was expected to take about 15 minutes to complete,
which was the recommended length by Lochmiller and Lester (2017). The survey started with
demographics questions and moved towards more complex ones.
As mentioned above, most of the questions were closed-ended multiple choice as they
were considered to be easier and faster to answer, which potentially was expected to increase the
response rate. Responses to such questions are easier in analysis, since they provide measurable
and quantitative data. However, considering that proposed response options may fail to capture
all possible answers and in some cases limit respondents, the option “other” in some questions
was included. It allowed respondents to provide specific answers that were not listed in the
suggested options and in some cases allowed for more comprehensive data in case a respondent
was willing to share more details.
Questions that had more than four short answers were divided into two columns. In terms
of question format, there was a combination of two: question and declaration, with a majority in
a question format. The researcher did not change the format very often throughout the survey.

42
Moreover, the researcher did not include any question with a reverse wording to avoid any
misunderstanding among respondents.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with vice-rectors of five universities. The
interview consisted of five questions exploring concepts of organizational capacity, culture, and
setting, efficiency, skills, and knowledge. The interview was semi-structured to provide more
flexibility (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested that individual
respondents have their unique definition of the world. While the structured interview format aims
to gather more sociodemographic data and does not allow follow-up questions, a more flexible
format of semi-structured interview allowed the researcher to respond to the situation at hand and
to new emerging ideas on the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). One of the major
strengths of a more flexible conversational interview format is that it allows more spontaneity
and responsiveness, so that questions may be personalized to engage an interviewee in a more
deepened communication to discover concepts and ideas that the researcher has not anticipated
or thought about (Patton & Cochran, 2002).
The researcher conducted interviews online via Zoom. The rationale behind conducting
interviews by the researcher herself was to engage in a meaningful conversation with colleagues
and try to gain as much valuable information as possible. Pseudonyms were used to protect
participants’ confidentiality and privacy. The researcher spent 60-70 minutes with each
interviewee. All interviews were recorded.
Interview questions were opinion and value questions, and knowledge questions, since
the study did not aim at exploring experiences or behaviors, rather perceptions and status
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton & Cochran, 2002). The opinion and value questions sought to
gain understanding of organizational capacity and how it was supported and developed, as well

43
as challenges faced by the organization in the implementation of changes. Another important
aspect to be explored through opinion and value questions was the evaluation of knowledge and
skills gaps among administrative staff. The knowledge questions were intended to provide data
on the organizational policies and strategies to support capacity development.
Data Analysis
The survey was sent to 146 people and 22 respondents completed it. Descriptive
statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results were submitted to identify frequencies
and averages.
Data analysis for interviews began once all interviews were conducted (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). After each interview, analytic memos were prepared to reflect on participants’
responses in relation to concepts and research questions, as well as to collect the researcher’s
own thoughts and perceptions. The researcher aimed to determine some key topics or concepts
that emerged in responses right after each interview. Coding was used as the main approach to
managing the collected data (Maxwell, 2013). According to Merriam & Tisdell (2016), coding is
assigning a label to allow the researcher to identify related concepts across the data. The analysis
began with category (key themes) construction (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
analysis started with open coding to determine any board categories that may emerge. After open
coding the researcher continued towards analytical coding using notes. The next step was to
create more specific categories and subcategories, keeping in mind the research questions and
personal biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, key concepts were selected and presented.
Data received from survey and interviews were translated from Russian and Kazakh languages to
English.

44
Credibility and Trustworthiness
One of the strategies to ensure credibility of a study is triangulation. Triangulation was
achieved through the use of multiple data collection methods and multiple sources of data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As discussed above, data was collected through the use of a
quantitative survey and semi-structured interviews. In terms of different data sources, data was
collected from two different groups of respondents—administrative staff and leadership of
universities. As suggested by Maxwell (2013), triangulation allows eliminating risks of biased
conclusions and helps gain more secure understating of the problem being investigated. Another
strategy that was employed to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the study was reflexivity
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Researcher’s biases and assumptions regarding the study should be
communicated and explained to readers. The researcher took measures to ensure that her
professional background and relevant experience did not influence the way she conducted
interviews. Although interviewees associated the researcher with a role she holds at work, from
the very beginning she clearly stated that in the context of this study she was acting as a
researcher and doctoral student. When developing survey and interview questions, similar
studies from reviewed literature guided and helped the researcher formulate questions, thus
minimizing an interference of researcher’s professional knowledge of the subject.
Ethics
Research ethics implies that a researcher acts responsibly toward study participants
continually ensuring their confidentiality and safety and keeping in mind their interests and
needs at every stage of the research process (Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Different authors and professional associations categorize research ethics into various groups
with many of them overlapping and having the same meanings (American Educational Research
Association, 2011; Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Vogt et al, 2012 cited in Lochmiller &

45
Lester, 2017).
One of the basic principles is obtaining an informed consent from study participants with
provision of sufficient information about the overall study, its goals, methods to be used (Glesne,
2011; Patton, 2015 cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the researcher used an online
survey as a data collection tool. To ensure that study participants fully understood the purpose of
the research and expected benefits resulting from research outcomes, the researcher included
concise descriptions in the recruitment email. She also emphasized that participation was
voluntary, and participants might withdraw at any stage of the study (Glesne, 2011).
Another important aspect of research ethics is ensuring participants’ anonymity. In this
case, the researcher was more worried about anonymity of institutions interview participants
represented, since the network of colleagues in the field of education is relatively small.
Therefore, letters were assigned to participants instead of real names and professional titles, and
the researcher did not provide details that might provide a hint to readers (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To ensure survey participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, the researcher did not
include questions that asked for names, email addresses, title of their institutions, exact age and
other questions that could potentially cause any concern or reluctance among participants
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
The study participants represented various higher education institutions in Kazakhstan
with which the researcher did not associate, except for general collaborations between
universities. The researcher did not personally know people she recruited for the study; therefore,
the participants did not feel coerced or pressured. However, there was a concern that the fact the
researcher worked for another university that is considered both as a peer and competitor to those
institutions might create some confusion and hesitation to participate or provide honest answers.
This concern was addressed by explaining that the researcher conducted the study in her capacity

46
as a doctoral student. Another issue that the researcher considered was an ethical dilemma of
becoming an intervener, which is when a researcher, unintentionally became aware of some
negative information about an institution, for instance, and it would create a dilemma of whether
to share it with this institution’s leadership. Glesne (2011) recommended that continual
protection of confidentiality is commonly known as the best way to address this.
Conducting research in compliance with ethical principles is dictated not only by legal
and institutional requirements, but also by moral responsibilities (Vogt et al., 2012 cited in
Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Vogt et al. emphasized the importance of responsibilities not only
toward research participants (issues of confidentiality, protection from any harm), but also
toward colleagues (issues of trust and reputation) and wider society. As a professional in the field
of higher education who strives to contribute to the development of the higher education sector
in Kazakhstan and grow professionally, it is crucial for the researcher to keep colleagues’ trust
and protect her own reputation, as well. Therefore, it was of high significance to conduct the
study in compliance with all ethical principles.
Limitations and Delimitations
One of the anticipated limitations of the study was the quality of the quantitative data.
Although the researcher was planning to take necessary measures and follow recommended
procedures, she was concerned with the extent to which survey respondents would be open and
truthful. Another limitation anticipated by the researcher was the response rate. A low response
rate would not allow generalization of study findings, whereas generalization was one of the
goals pursued within this study. Other limitations also included translation of data collection
tools from English to the Russian and Kazakh languages, as well as translation of collected data
to the English language.

47
Role of the Researcher
The researcher’s positionality is developed in line with three main areas—locating a
researcher about the research subject, locating a researcher about research participants, and
locating a researcher about the research context and process (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013 cited
in Holmes, 2020). The above three areas are shaped by researchers’ gender, race, nationality and
some other factors that are considered as “fixed,” as well as by more fluid aspects, such as
political views, experiences, and life history, that are more contextual and subjective (Holmes,
2020).
This researcher’s positionality was shaped by her professional experience and some prior
understanding of the subject. The institution she has been working at for more than 11 years is
the only autonomous university in Kazakhstan and the wider Central Asian region, while
institutions included in the study were accountable to the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education and therefore regulated by completely different policies and rules.
As for the positionality about research participants and research context, there was a
concern that the researcher would be seen more as an outsider who came from a very different
context in terms of institutional governance, finance, and accountability, even though she works
at a university that is part of the wider higher education system in Kazakhstan. It was expected
that respondents might be reluctant to share real information with someone whom they consider
an outsider in the system. At the same time, the researcher had been involved in initiatives that
included communication and collaboration with many other universities. This helped maintain
partnerships and expand researcher’s network of colleagues to help and participate in the
research. This researcher’s involvement in experience-sharing had also helped develop a deeper
understanding of primary initiatives and reforms in the field of higher education in Kazakhstan,
as well as a greater understanding of the challenges that universities face.

48
As suggested by Holmes (2020), expected challenges might be addressed through selfreflection and reflexivity throughout the research process and adoption of “empathic neutrality”
(Ormston et al., 2014 cited in Holmes, 2020). Ormston et al. (2014) suggested that a researcher
should “strive to avoid obvious, conscious, or systematic bias and to be as neutral as possible in
the collection, interpretation, and presentation of data.”
At the same time, it was impossible to disregard fully one’s ethics, personal values and
principles, as well as professional experience and competency. Moreover, it is important for
researchers to be guided to some extent by their personal goals that are also shaped by personal
experiences, personal values and principles, as well as motivation, so as to avoid any potential
interference and loss of interest in the chosen topic (Maxwell, 2013).

49
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand higher education administrators’ perceptions
of capacity development programs and identify what challenges they face in a changing higher
education environment in Kazakhstan. The study used a mixed methods data collection approach
consisting of a survey of higher education administrators and semi-structured interviews with
university top management represented by vice-rectors for student affairs and academic affairs.
The obtained data was analyzed through the lens of the human capital development and
organizational change theories. Concepts from the two theoretical frameworks guided the coding
process. The following three research questions guided the study:
1. What are higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity development
programs?
2. What challenges do administrators in higher education face in a changing
organizational setting, if any?
3. What are the implications of higher education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes at an institutional level?
Questions 1 and 2 were addressed through both interviews and surveys and question 3
was addressed through interview questions. This chapter discusses the study findings. The first
section provides an overview of the participants of the study. The following section outlines the
major themes that were identified based on their prevalence in the obtained quantitative and
qualitative data. The chapter then concludes with a summary of the findings of the study.
Overview of Participants
The data for this study were collected using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data
were collected from university administrative staff employed in career centers and student

50
affairs/services. Qualitative data were collected from university vice-rectors for student affairs or
academic affairs.
Survey Participants
Survey participants were recruited via email and a WhatsApp group. Websites of 110
universities were reviewed to create a list of email addresses for personnel in student
affairs/services departments. As a result, an email with a survey link was sent to 70 recipients, 10
of which were returned as invalid addresses. As for career centers personnel, a message with a
link was sent to the WhatsApp group that included 86 representatives of career centers from all
Kazakhstani universities. Thus, the survey was sent to 146 recipients, with two follow-up
reminders. In the end, out of 146 recipients, 38 people participated in the survey, but only 22
completed the survey, which represented 15%.
The two largest groups of respondents were between the ages of 31-40 and 41-50, with
each group comprising 27%. The prevailing majority of survey participants were heads or
directors of departments or offices, 64%. The second largest group were specialists, which
comprised 18%. About one third of respondents (32%) came from private higher education
institutions, while the rest were distributed evenly between three types of public universities:
national, state, and regional universities, with 23% of respondents representing each of them.

51
Table 2
Survey Participants Demographics - Positions Held, Type of a Higher Education Institution
Position Number %
Head/Director 14 64
Deputy Head/Director 1 4.5
Specialist 4 18
Academic Advisor 1 4.5
Assistant Professor 1 4.5
No answer 1 4.5
Type of a Higher
Education Institution
Number %
National (pubic) 5 23
State (public) 5 23
Regional (public) 5 23
Private 7 32
The survey identified the educational background and years of experience of respondents.
Respondents held degrees in diverse fields, including humanities (32%), engineering (23%),
sciences and social sciences (14% each), education (4.5%), and other fields. In terms of the time
spent in their current roles, 77% of respondents had less than five years of experience, while the
remaining were distributed in groups with 5-10 and more than 20 years of experience (9% in
each group) and 4.5% with 11-15 years of experience.

52
Table 3
Survey Participants Demographics - Educational Background and Professional Experience
Major Number %
Humanities 7 32
Sciences 3 14
Engineering 5 23
Computer Sciences 1 4.5
Education 1 4.5
Social Sciences 3 14
Other 2 9
Years of experience in the
current role
Number %
Less than 5 years 17 77
5-10 years 2 9
11-15 years 1 4.5
16-20 years 0 0
More than 20 years 2 9
Interview Participants
At the start of data collection, emails were sent to potential interviewees. However, no
response was received. After that, participants were recruited with the help of colleagues and
friends. In the end, six semi-structured interviews were conducted. Four out of six interviewees
were male (67%) and two were female (33%). There were three vice-rectors for student affairs
and three vice-rectors for academic affairs who represented different universities from different
regions of the country. Although titles of some interviewees did not directly indicate their
responsibility for student related units, their functions did include units working with students.

53
Half of the respondents represented public universities located in smaller towns (less developed
than the capital city and other major cities), while the other half represented private universities
located in bigger cities, the capital, and the former capital city. All interviews were conducted
online using Zoom and were recorded.
Table 4
Interview Participants Demographics - Gender, Areas of Responsibility, Type of University
Pseudonym Area of
Responsibility
Type of University Gender
U Student affairs Private Male
E1 Student affairs Private Male
E2 Academic affairs Private Female
S Academic affairs Public Female
P Academic affairs Public Male
K Student affairs Public Male
Presentation of Findings
The data collected from participants came from survey and semi-structured interviews.
The first research question sought to understand administrative staff’s perceptions of the
available capacity development programs, as well as to gain general understanding of the
capacity development opportunities that higher education institutions and the Ministry offered to
administrators in higher education. This question was also addressed through interview questions
with participants in leadership positions at universities to see their perspective, too.
The second research question aimed to understand challenges faced by higher education
administrators, particularly, in the context of ongoing organizational changes that were
oftentimes imposed by the Ministry. To answer this question, the survey asked questions from

54
the perspective of skills and knowledge they lacked, whereas the interview participants were
asked about their overall challenges in implementing changes, including lacking skills.
The third research question sought to understand potential implications of higher
education administrators’ level of preparation on the implementation of needed changes.
Additional interview questions resulted in data that helped answer this question.
The data collected from the survey and interviews was analyzed through the lens of
various concepts within the two theoretical frameworks that guided this study. Three themes
were identified (Table 5).
Table 5
Thematic Findings
Thematic Findings Research Questions
Lack of systematic approach to capacity
development
RQ 1. What are higher education
administrators’ perceptions of capacity
development programs?
Aligning professional development with needs RQ 1. What are higher education
administrators’ perceptions of capacity
development programs?
Rapid pace of change
RQ 2. What challenges do administrators in
higher education face in a changing
organizational setting, if any?
Staff retention is essential in sustaining human
capacity
RQ 3. What are the implications of higher
education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes
at an institutional level?
Research Question 1: What are higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity
development programs?
Theme 1: Lack of Systematic Approach to Capacity Development

55
The lack of a systematic approach to capacity development of professional staff in higher
education institutions included inconsistency in funding professional development, types of prior
training among administrative staff, and institutional policies on capacity development.
Although higher education institutions and the Ministry offered diverse professional
development opportunities for administrative staff, funding amounts varied depending on the
type of an institution and its location and were not aligned to the needs of an institution and
objectives it had to achieve. Accessibility to and awareness of existing professional development
opportunities among administrative staff also varied.
The survey and interview participants shared contradictory answers on the existing
opportunities for capacity development of administrators in higher education. The data obtained
from interviews revealed that both universities (at an institutional level) and the Ministry (at the
system level) offered a diverse range of opportunities for professional development including
some short-term courses, degree programs, opportunities for professional development abroad,
exchange of experience between higher education institutions, and other options. It is noteworthy
that interviewees highlighted the availability of funds for these types of opportunities, although
amounts might vary depending on the type and location of a university.
Respondent S, who represented a public university located in one of the biggest cities,
provided the following comment: “Money is poured into professional development, short-term
courses, training, especially in the field of management. Usually, any university plans funding
for professional development each year.” However, Respondent P, representing a public
university in a smaller town, commented: “... training faculty, training employees, yes, this is a
problem. Here, regional universities, I don’t know how it works at central national universities,
still have limited funding. It’s also not always possible to send everyone where we want to.”

56
The survey results showed that more than a half of respondents (54.5%) had some
training related to their current roles. Training mostly (32%) included short-term courses and
only one respondent (4.5%) had a related degree.
Figure 1
Types of Training You Had Related to Your Current Role
When it came to learning opportunities available in their current job places, the survey
asked respondents to tick all applicable options from the suggested list. As a result, the top three
options were conferences (50%), open lectures (45%), and seminars (41%).
Despite availability of a diverse range of training opportunities indicated by survey
respondents, there seemed to be issues related to staff awareness of the relevant institutional
policies regulating administrative employees’ professional development. According to the data,
one-half of the respondents indicated that their institutions had a policy that regulated
administrative staff’s professional development, while 32% did not know if there was such a
policy in their institution. The survey also sought to learn about respondents’ opinion about the
frequency of trainings related to their field of work that were organized by their employers. The
data revealed that only 4.5% of respondents answered “very frequently” as opposed to 32% of
respondents who indicated “not at all.” An equal number of respondents (27%) selected
“frequently” and “infrequently.”

57
Figure 2
Frequency of Trainings Related to Your Job Organized by Your Employer
As seen from the data, administrative staff, mostly represented by heads of units (64%)
and representatives of university executive management, had different perceptions of the
capacity development opportunities for administrative staff. While executive management
believed there were a diverse range of opportunities funded by individual institutions and by the
Ministry, close to half (45.5%) of administrative staff reported they did not have any training
related to their current jobs.
Although interview participants believed there were many different training
opportunities, they suggested that there should be a systematic, needs-based approach to capacity
development. Respondent P said:
... programs should not be periodic, but systematic. There should be an opportunity to
receive additional funding based on what you are implementing. It’s impossible for every
individual university to create it, that’s why we need to somehow unite, or each university
should develop based on its specifics.

58
Regardless of different perceptions about existing capacity development opportunities for
administrative staff, interview and survey participants shared similar views on proposed types of
programs and approaches to capacity development. In addition to qualitative data from
interviews, the survey also had an open-ended question to ask respondents about their
suggestions on what could help prepare administrators in higher education. One of the most
frequently shared comments by both survey and interview participants was to offer in-service
training opportunities, so that participants could combine study and work.
Administrative staff shared the following comments to an open-ended question on
providing suggestions to help prepare/train administrators in student services for universities:
“Associations with an opportunity to attend short-term certification training (up to 1 year)
without leaving a job.” Another survey respondent said, “There should be winter schools during
breaks.” Respondent K said: “Evening programs/courses, … outside working hours, online.”
Theme 2: Aligning Professional Development with Needs
In the context of continuous transformation and reforms, the data from this study
highlighted that involved higher education institutions should evaluate and understand their
organizational capacity for effective implementation of changes. The evaluation would guide
institutions’ plans on professional development priorities in line with identified gaps and needs
of staff.
As mentioned above, interview and survey respondents reported that there were various
professional development opportunities available, although they were inconsistent in terms of
their funding depending on the type and location of a higher education institution. Another
important aspect revealed during the interviews with university leadership was that capacity
development was not always aligned with the needs of a university and organizational contexts.
Implementation of organizational strategies involves the availability of adequate resources,

59
including human resources that possess skills and knowledge needed to foster achievement of
organizational goals. Thus, any organization should make a coordinated effort to evaluate its
human resources and determine their needs and gaps in terms of the professional development
and to align their plans with the strategy. However, the interview data did not clearly
demonstrate that there was a planned approach.
Respondent E2 (Vice-Rector) commented on the importance of considering and
acknowledging differences between universities when developing capacity development
programs, including its location: “Each university is individual. Again, we must take into
account the conditions. If this is Almaty, it really is, let’s say, a student environment, a bunch of
universities.” In previous sections, similar comments of other interviewees were mentioned in
relation to funding and accessibility of professional development opportunities depending on the
type of the university—public or private, and their location whether in bigger cities or in less
developed towns.
Respondent P, who was a vice-rector in a regional public university, suggested that when
allocating funding for professional development, one should consider what a university was
requested to implement and whether changes needed to be implemented were important for a
particular region of the country where a university was located: “Possibility of receiving
additional funding depending on what you implement. Well, is it important or not important for
the region?”
Another important highlight was that when developing an overall systematic approach to
capacity development, one should also consider specifics of reforms and transformations
happening in the higher education sector. Respondent S did not see the development of specific
degree programs in the field of student affairs or any similar direction as an efficient solution to
develop capacity of administrators in higher education institutions. Respondent S said: “With the

60
speed with which our regulations change, and how we change concepts, and how we change
policies in the field of education, not a single educational program will be able to keep up with
this.”
Summary of Findings for RQ1
Data obtained from interview and survey responses revealed the lack of a unified
systematic approach in developing capacity of administrative staff in higher education
institutions. Although both senior university management and administrative staff acknowledged
the existence of a wide range of professional development opportunities available for staff in
higher education institutions, the funding and accessibility of such programs might vary
depending on the type and location of the institution. The absence of a unified systematic
approach was further underscored by differing levels of awareness regarding professional
development policies among administrative staff at universities. In addition, the data showed that
existing approaches to professional development of administrators were not always aligned to the
needs of an institution and tasks it had to implement. Thus, the overall management of the
organizational change lacks the comprehensive approach.
Research Question 2: What challenges do administrators in higher education face in a changing
organizational setting, if any?
Theme 3: Rapid Pace of Change
Kazakhstan’s higher education sector has been going through significant reforms in
recent years. These changes have been driven by both national agenda and external global trends
including the impact of technology development, demographic shifts, globalization, and effects
of COVID-19. Changes revealed the preparedness of institutions to absorb and effectively
implement them. Within the framework of this study, it was found that organizational capacities
of higher education institutions were not always aligned to changes that need to be implemented.

61
Challenges were mostly discussed with interview participants who as representatives of
universities top management had a more strategic view and understanding of institutional and
sectoral settings. One of the major outcomes resulting from the discussions was that higher
education institutions were not always prepared for the amount and pace of the changes
happening in higher education systems.
According to the responses of university leadership, there were changes of various scales
and levels that happened fast and often. As stated by interview participants, oftentimes university
employees had to learn new things while already implementing them, thus there was no prior
preparation for the change implementation.
According to Respondent P (Vice-Rector), “…in fact, it does not always work out so that
you first send a person to study, then do something. You, sort of, have to do and learn at the
same time.” Respondent P further added that:
... our qualification requirements change once a year lately; this is too often. It should be
once every four years at least so that we have time. Otherwise, we make some changes to
our regulatory documents, develop new requirements, and then it changes again, and
again we have to adapt on the fly.
Respondent S (Vice-Rector) echoed the previous comments and also shared about
“constant changes” saying that “well, we also need to say thank you to the ministry, since our
legal regulations are changing at such a speed” (said sarcastically).
In addition to interview data on the lack of prior training, survey data revealed that onethird (32%) of administrative staff did not have any training before they started their current jobs,
whereas only 4.5% had a related degree.
Another issue related to the human capacity aspect of the change implementation was the
lack of communication skills reported by both university leadership and administrative staff.

62
Interviewees and survey respondents were asked to answer questions about the skills and
knowledge higher education administrators lacked.
According to the data obtained from interviews, one of the most important and lacking
skills among administrative staff was communication skills that encompassed presentation skills,
ability to deliver information professionally, and English language proficiency. Respondent E2
commented that “... communication skills, not everyone has them, or cannot do it, for instance.”
Furthermore, Respondent P said,
Well, communication skills are probably very important, the skills of correct, let’s say,
communication, the ability to convey information correctly. … the ability to
communicate with students, yes, with a parent, yes, with a grandmother, yes, this is to
build communication correctly so as not to lead to scandals.
This comment provided more clarity in terms of the importance of communication skills
with a particular group of stakeholders who were students and their families. Another
interviewee, Respondent E1, also emphasized the importance of communication skills:
“communication skills must be upgraded, even starting from security officers.”
While these comments on the importance of the communication skills were addressed to
administrative staff, Respondent E2 said that it was also critical for university leadership
members to have well developed communication skills:
... let's say, you build a dialogue so that they trust you. When they trust you, then they
begin to be interested in the product itself… Yes, you have to make an impression by the
presentation, although it was not cool there. It's even possible that you spent money [on
the presentation], but how do you deliver the presentation? Do you feel the person you
are talking to?

63
Although communication skills were reported as one of the most important and lacking
skills for higher education administrators, interview respondents also highlighted the importance
of the knowledge of various regulations:
Therefore, I believe that regardless of whether the top management, yes, the rector or
vice-rector, regardless of the position, they should at least have an understanding of the
educational process. That is, this consistency in the educational process. And knowledge
of legal acts is required. Deans should also know all the principles of the Bologna
Process, ESG, all regulatory documents, because this is the core of the process.
Having up-to-date knowledge of regulations is complicated by their frequent change. It
was mentioned above that one of the challenges was frequent and fast changes at institutional
and system levels. Thus, Respondent P commented that “given that it changes frequently, people
must have regulatory documentation.”
The survey had a multiple-choice question that asked respondents to select which of the
suggested list of the skills they felt they lacked (they could select all that applied). The list of
options did not have communication skills as an option, but had an option on language skills,
particularly English language skills. Half of the respondents reported that they felt they were
lacking language skills, while almost one-fourth (23%) of the respondents did not lack any skills.

64
Figure 3
Skills Administrators Lack and Experience Difficulties with when Fulfilling Their Job Duties
In addition to challenges caused by continuous changes that universities are not always
ready to adopt, another challenge is related to the requirements of reporting and providing
information to the Ministry and other government bodies. One of the interview participants
commented:
Generally, all requests come from the Ministry and Akimat [local government authority].
You can preliminarily know what requests you receive during the academic year. And
don’t put out fires when they send it to you urgently, send it, as you know that they will
ask this every year. The form of reporting changes. Every day something changes.
Another issue raised by participants was that “…they are trying to impose something.
They [want to put everyone] under one system.”
Resistance to Change. Changes themselves created a lot of resistance and when changes
happen so often, it makes the implementation process more complicated. One of the subthemes

65
emerging from the obtained qualitative data is resistance to change that often comes because of
the lack of understanding of these changes. According to the data, people accepted it as an
additional burden and workload, something that did not make any sense and did not have
positive outcomes and impact on an organization. Respondent S commented on change
resistance:
When the ministry sends us a standard, we have to explain why this happened. Why did
you do this? Most often, people don’t understand, for them it’s just another stupid thing,
another idea of some person who has never worked in the field of higher education. And
he doesn't know anything.
Respondent S further added that “…a lot of stubbornness and resistance [come] from
professors and a lot from departments, well, chairs.”
Respondent K tried to provide a rationale for the resistance to change and explained it as
follows: “one feels extra responsibility, extra workload or more time. Older workers are often the
ones who feel this way.” Thus, Respondent K thought that older employees might feel more
resistance in comparison to younger ones. However, the participant further shared that it was not
always the case and sometimes it “depends on a person's level of intelligence [education].”
According to interviewees, resistance to changes often happens because these changes are
not explained and communicated clearly to those who are expected to implement them.
Moreover, administrative staff, as well as faculty members, do not understand the rationale
behind changes and the difference between the old and the new. The issue of communicating
changes to university staff, who represent an important stakeholder group, becomes even more
crucial when higher education institutions are located in smaller towns. Respondent K also
commented on this issue saying,

66
Reforms are done top-down. Local specifics are not considered. Mentality. Capacities
were not taken into account when implementing reforms. General ignorance, many
mistakes were neglected, and reforms were not implemented correctly. Now, during
the last 3-4 years, when developing reforms, local context and opinions are
necessarily taken into account by the center. What it means is that there is a feedback
loop.
Summary of Findings for RQ 2
The insights gained from interviews underscored the rapid and extensive changes faced
by higher education institutions. The change implementation processes have been accompanied
with complexities stemming from the lack of human capacity preparedness and essential skills
and knowledge.
Research Question 3: What are the implications of higher education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes at an institutional level?
Theme 4: Staff Retention is Essential in Sustaining Human Capacity
Staff retention plays a critical role in capacity development and effective change
implementation. Retaining experienced staff with relevant skills and knowledge ensures the
continuity, which is essential for maintaining organizational capacity.
Discussions with interview participants about the organizational capacity and change
implementation revealed unexpected, but critical findings related to administrative staff. The
obtained data showed a critical role of staff retention and motivation. Staff motivation was
considered through several angles, including lack of motivation to develop professionally and
participate in training and development, lack of motivation to participate in change
implementation, and fostering motivation through monetary and non-monetary incentives
through the development of a supportive environment and organizational culture. While

67
university top management from regional universities talked about motivation more in the
context of staff retention, representatives of private institutions located in bigger cities talked
about the importance of providing incentives and creating a favorable environment and culture.
Respondent K commented:
Now we are considered a regional higher education institution. At regional higher
education institutions compared to national higher education institutions, human capacity
will be relatively lower. Because the national universities are located in central cities
anyway. And there is a benefits package. The benefits package will be high, because
there are more opportunities in national education institutions, more funds are allocated
and they attract more researchers to participate in projects.
A difference in funding of universities in bigger cities and more remote regional towns
was also discussed in the previous sections in the framework of capacity development
opportunities. Another representative from a regional university, Respondent P shared:
Well, we are a regional university, probably the main problem of all regional
universities is the outflow of personnel to central universities, mainly. Well, here, in
any case, people are ambitious, young, many are defending [getting PhD degrees],
growing. …There is already little space, let’s say, at a regional university. And first of
all, I think financial problems come first. It is constantly necessary to prepare new
staff to replace the losses. This is a problem.
While representatives of regional universities shared about difficulties and challenges
they were facing, interviewees from private universities and universities located in bigger cities
emphasized the importance of monetary and non-monetary incentives and commented on the
development of the overall organizational settings and cultures. Respondent U commented,

68
We have, well, a kind of a benefits package that helps to adapt when new employees
come. First of all, the fitness center services are free. These services, for example,
medical care, are also provided. The salary, well, I can’t even say in percentages, but it’s
slightly higher than in the market for other universities. This is also because today’s
youth, a salary guides them, where there is more and better. This is it. Second. Now the
third thing. Regarding KPI, we introduced a bonus once a year in the amount of a salary,
not even a salary. This is also a very good incentive for employees to work.
Another representative of a private university, Respondent E2, commented not only on monetary
incentives, but also on non-monetary incentives and shared the following,
That is, when you have, let’s say, a team, a group of professors, and someone [a
leader] can’t, excuse me, deliver a speech, motivate employees, develop this climate.
Yes. This is also bad. Yes. That is, this is such a moment, well, for any leader, that, he
must understand what challenges the university faces, what the climate is. ...you must
always act in the best interests of your employees. That is, you have to build a
protective cushion somewhere, there. And employees should feel this, they should feel
this umbrella, that they are protected, which means they are protected, which means
they won’t even have any thoughts about changing [leaving]a university or something.
In another comment, Respondent E2 highlighted the importance of communication between
university leadership and staff and creating an environment where employees feel protected.
Another important aspect of an organizational setting that interviewees commented on
was about the stability of organizational structures and teams and its potential impact on the
work. One respondent mentioned that “unstable,” or “constantly changing” organizational
structures implied changes in employees’ positions, which meant that they would have new job
duties and learn to do new things. In contrast, another respondent shared that “established teams”

69
at the level of employees created challenges for newly appointed senior leadership and
demonstrated resistance to changes.
While interviewees provided perspectives on the importance of staff motivation and
incentivization from a more strategic level including the overall organizational settings and
cultures, survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction level with capacity development
opportunities provided by their universities. Professional development is also one of the key
components of the overall employee motivation strategies.
According to the survey data, 41% of respondents reported they were probably satisfied
with capacity development opportunities, while 27% stated they were probably not satisfied.
Figure 4 below shows the distribution of answers in more detail.
Figure 4
Satisfaction Level with Training Opportunities and Support Provided by an Employer
Summary of Findings for RQ 3
While this research initially aimed at studying capacity development of higher education
administrative staff working with students, obtained data, particularly interview data, revealed
other important aspects in the overall career development of university employees. The interview
participants discussed the importance of a wider concept of staff motivation and incentivization
where capacity development can be considered as one of the essential aspects.

70
Conclusion
This study sought to understand higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity
development programs and identify what challenges they face in a changing higher education
environment. Semi-structured interviews and a survey were conducted to gather data that would
help answer the mentioned questions. The collected data revealed that there was no commonly
shared perception of the capacity development opportunities—respondents agreed that there was
a range of different options available, but they had different perspectives on availability and
amounts of funding, as well as overall satisfaction with frequency of professional development
opportunities. Communication skills, including presentation and English language skills were
identified as one of the most important, and needed to be improved and developed by both top
management and administrators. One of the most commonly mentioned challenges in a changing
higher education environment were the changes themselves and their pace and amount,
compounded by the fact that human capacity was not always prepared in advance, and
differences in the level of organizational capacity between more centrally located and regionally
located higher education institutions are not always considered. Finally, data also revealed the
importance of staff motivation and incentivization through monetary and non-monetary
incentives, as well as the need for the creation of a supportive organizational setting and culture,
and building teams. The next chapter will provide recommendations to address issues and
challenges discussed within the framework of key findings.

71
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study is to understand higher education administrators’ perceptions of
capacity development programs and identify what challenges they face in a changing higher
education environment in Kazakhstan. Higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity
development was that regardless of a variety of available opportunities, the overall approach
needed to be more systematic, so that it considered specific needs and gaps and other factors
affecting the capacity development and implementation of changes. Major challenges faced by
higher education administrators included the pace and number of changes that universities were
required to implement and lack of prior training and gaps in some skills and knowledge.
The review of existing literature showed that previous studies on capacity development of
staff at higher education institutions in Kazakhstan focused primarily on faculty, while reviews
of the higher education system by OECD suggested that the government of Kazakhstan should
prioritize capacity development for successful and efficient implementation of reforms and
policies in education (Huisman et al., 2018; Jantassova et al., 2021; OECD, 2017). Previous
research suggests that the role of the administrative staff has changed, and their importance had
increased in response to the changing higher education landscape (Bossu et al., 2019; Wild &
Wooldridge, 2009, cited in Lewis, 2014). As a result, the increasing importance of the role of
administrative staff at universities emphasized the growing need for adequate training. Thus, this
study aimed to understand the current state of capacity development of professional staff in
Kazakhstani higher education institutions.
The study was guided by the following three research questions:
1. What are higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity development
programs?
2. What challenges do administrators in higher education face in a changing

72
organizational setting, if any?
3. What are the implications of higher education administrators’ capacity
development for implementation of changes at an institutional level?
The objective of this fifth chapter is to propose recommendations for practice that have
been developed based on the study’s findings. This chapter begins with a discussion of findings,
followed by recommendations for practice, recommendations for future research, limitations and
delimitations, and conclusion of the study.
Discussion of Findings
This section discusses the findings presented in the chapter in relation to the existing
literature. Four themes emerged as a result of the data analysis, which are: 1) lack of a
systematic approach to capacity development; 2) aligning professional development with needs;
3) rapid pace of change; 4) staff retention is essential in sustaining human capacity. Whereas
some findings were consistent with the existing literature, other findings offered new insights.
Connecting Findings to Theoretical Frameworks
This study included the examination of two theories: human capital development and
organizational change. Findings from this study suggest that the university system in Kazakhstan
requires a more systematic plan for human capital development that will align with
organizational needs and capabilities of higher education institutions. Analysis of an institution’s
human capacity is an integral part of the overall process of change implementation, and gaps in
human capacity hinders the change implementation (Burke, 2017). A more detailed discussion of
each of the study findings in relation to the theoretical frameworks are presented in the sections
below that discuss each theme separately.

73
Theme 1: Lack of a Systematic Approach to Capacity Development
One of the objectives of the study was to understand how professional staff members’
capacity has been developed in Kazakhstani higher education institutions that have been
undergoing continuous significant transformation. The data collected through the mixed methods
approach revealed the lack of a systematic approach to capacity development of administrators in
higher education institutions. This finding is consistent with published literature that underlined
the importance of human resource development, as well as the lack of a systematic approach to
developing capacity in many organizations (Bayarystanova et al., 2014; Jantassova et al., 2021;
Seitova, 2016).
Despite the fact that the current state-developed strategic documents do not reflect the
prioritization of capacity development of higher education administrators (Concept on the
Development of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2022-2026, 2022; National
Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2025, 2021), according to the interview and
survey participants, there was a variety of professional development opportunities available for
university staff. However, the data disclosed inconsistency in terms of funding, accessibility, and
in the way higher education institutions communicate professional development policies.
Based on data gathered from interviews with representatives from public and private
universities situated in both bigger cities and smaller towns across the country, the availability of
funding for professional development programs appears to fluctuate based on the institution's
location and type. The findings showed that universities in smaller towns, struggling with lower
human capacity and staff retention issues, encountered difficulties in securing adequate funding.
This fact can be explained by the absence of a comprehensive evaluation of organizational
capacities within higher education institutions in Kazakhstan, leading to budget allocations that

74
may not align with actual needs. The evaluation and analysis of organizational capacity is also a
part of a systematic approach, which is, according to the research data, something that the
capacity development of higher education administrators lacks. Moreover, existing literature on
human capacity development in the Kazakhstani context also suggests that training initiatives
demonstrated a fragmented character (Huisman et al., 2018; Jantassova et al., 2021; OECD,
2017). The literature suggested that gaps in professional development opportunities and lack of
relevant skills and knowledge were found as barriers in the implementation of new initiatives or
certain approaches and practices in teaching and learning (Jantassova et al., 2021; OECD, 2017).
Schultz (1968) identified three major approaches to the preparation of university
administrative staff—formal study, informal study, and in-service programs. However, findings
of this study suggested that one-third (32%) of the study participants did not have any training
and only one person had a degree related to their job. Overall, participants reported the
availability of a wide range of capacity development opportunities. Thus, this could be
interpreted as an indication of the prevalence of in-service training, and a lack of formal
education or training.
Fielden (1998) emphasized the significance of staff development in addressing
challenges facing higher education institutions and argued that the effectiveness of higher
education institutions heavily depended on the quality of their staff. However, research findings
revealed that only 27% of higher education administrators received regular (“frequently”)
training in their workplaces, while another 27% reported infrequent training sessions.
Additionally, one-third of respondents believed that no training opportunities were available at
all.

75
The lack of a systematic approach to capacity development is evident at an institutional
level, with one-third (32%) of administrators indicating unawareness of their institution’s
professional development policy. This low level of awareness may stem from inefficient
communication of the policy from the university or the absence of such policies. For the
purposes of this study, technical capacity (Cummings & Norgaard, 2004) which is partly
concerned with workers’ level of education and professional training represented a particular
interest as part of the wider organizational change theory. The lack of a systematic approach to
capacity development could be seen as a gap in the change implementation process, particularly
in terms of evaluating the capacity to enact changes effectively.
Theme 2: Aligning Professional Development with Needs
Experts in the field of change management indicate the importance of organizational
readiness for successful change implementation (Weiner, 2009). Kazakhstani researchers also
recognized the importance of the role of higher education administrators in the context of
implementation of educational reforms and considered “training of managers in education” as
one of the challenges that may hinder the efficiency (Bayarystanova et al., 2014, p. 427).
Nonetheless, the research findings revealed that professional development opportunities did not
consistently align with the needs of universities.
Study participants highlighted that certain unique aspects of higher education institutions,
such as their location, were not considered when allocating funding. In addition, funding
allocation often overlooked the specific objectives that higher education institutions are tasked to
fulfill. Subsequently, organizational capacity and financial resources universities required were
also not considered when planning change implementation.

76
This could also be interpreted as a deficiency in the broader change implementation
process, where both the Ministry of Education and universities, at both system-wide and
institutional levels, failed to thoroughly analyze and evaluate the needs of implementers, the
organizational context, and the necessity of the proposed changes. This finding contributes to the
literature on change implementation and capacity development in Kazakhstan and demonstrates
the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation of organizational capacities and needs, as well as the
relevance of proposed changes prior to the implementation of new policies and reforms.
Theme 3: Rapid Pace of Change
As a relatively young country, Kazakhstan has been intensively transforming its higher
education system. As discussed in the literature review section, currently the higher education
section prioritizes seven complex development directions (Nurbek, 2023). Though the
development plans and sectoral concepts (Concept on the Development of Education of the
Republic of Kazakhstan 2022-2026, 2022; National Development Plan of the Republic of
Kazakhstan 2025, 2021) described the specific changes the higher education sector was to go
through, the documents did not always reflect and take into consideration challenges that higher
education institutions would face in the implementation process.
The data collected through interviews and the survey revealed some of the challenges
universities in general and higher education administrators in particular faced while
implementing changes. The major finding of the current study was that changes had been
happening rapidly and widely. This issue is further exacerbated by the lack of prior training and
preparation of university employees, including administrative staff. As survey data
demonstrated, one-third of student affairs administrators did not have any prior formal training
related to their current jobs.

77
This finding contributes to the existing literature and emphasizes the importance of, and
need for, the development of adequate human capacity for the successful and efficient
implementation of changes. Chekmareva et al. (2016) highlighted the criticality of building
capacity for systems or organizations that go through large-scale change processes. Furthermore,
international studies of higher education transformation also emphasized the critical role of
university staff in responding to challenges and needs of the system (Holzweiss et al., 2019;
Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Whitchurch, 2006). Thus, both the findings of this study and
existing literature are consistent with the theoretical frameworks that guided the study—
organizational change implementation and the critical role of human capacity development in the
context of organizational change.
Alongside the lack of prior formal training, both interviews and survey revealed that 50%
of administrators in student affairs lacked English language skills, whereas university top
management considered that it was important for both leadership and administrators to have
well-developed communication skills. These findings are consistent with some of the existing
studies in the Kazakhstani context that also indicated the lack of English language knowledge as
one of the challenges and disadvantages. Thus, the research on building capacity for
internationalization and research in Kazakhstani higher education institutions revealed that
university employees lacked English language proficiency and it was considered one of the
barriers (Jantassova et al., 2021; Lee & Kuzhabekova, 2019). The lack of English language
competencies limits administrative staff’s access to up-to-date information and research in the
field, as well as learning opportunities and networks internationally. Knowledge of the English

78
language has become important in the context of internationalization, as Kazakhstan aims to
attract more international students who need services to be provided in English.
Whereas the abovementioned studies indicated the lack of English language knowledge
as one of the disadvantages in Kazakhstani higher education institutions, studies on university
professional staff indicated written communication skills as one of the competencies that
professional staff should possess in addition to finance management, planning, assessment,
relating theory to practice, critical thinking, collaboration, and conflict management (Burkard et
al., 2005; Cooper et al., 2016; Dickerson et al., 2011; Kuk et al., 2007; Morris & Laipple, 2015,
cited in Holzweiss et al., 2019).
The pace and volume of changes being implemented in the organizational contexts that
lack necessary training and core skills also highlight the gaps in system-wide planning and lack
of knowledge of the principles of the organizational change theory.
Theme 4: Staff Retention is Essential in Sustaining Human Capacity
One of the unexpected and important findings that came from the research data was the
importance of retaining administrative staff in higher education institutions. This finding was
considered in relation to staff motivation through monetary and non-monetary incentivization.
Though the literature review did not include studies on retention and motivation of student
affairs administrators, human capital theory touches on staff motivation.
In the context of this study, the importance of staff retention stemmed from discussions
on the organizational capacity and availability of opportunities for professional development and
growth, motivation to participate in professional development and change implementation, as
well as the disadvantaged position of universities located in less developed smaller towns.

79
The study data suggested that universities in smaller towns had difficulties with retaining
staff, especially those who obtained degrees abroad or had higher qualifications, since such
universities could not offer competitive benefits packages or attractive career opportunities.
These limitations might partly be a result of the discrepancies in funding that were discussed
earlier. Thus, interview participants from smaller towns underscored the essential role of staff
retention through provision of attractive benefits packages represented in monetary terms.
Another point that emerged from discussions with interviewees and in survey responses was that
some administrative staff combined their administrative jobs with teaching. Holding two
positions may hinder staff from the comprehensive development and prioritization of one of the
roles. This in turn may hinder professionalization of the employee’s administrative job. One of
the major reasons behind combining two jobs may be related to salary issues. This outcome may
potentially contribute to the literature on capacity development of administrative staff at
universities, as the previous studies did not mention this aspect.
At the same time, interviewees from private universities or universities located in the
capital city or other bigger cities, discussed the staff motivation through the lens of developing a
favorable organizational culture. Organizational culture and settings to larger extent derive from
overall cultural norms and beliefs that combined with the overall environment where universities
operate impact the implementation of key reforms in Kazakhstan's higher education system
(Hartley et al., 2016, p. 287).
Another essential aspect of the discussion was about the connectedness of administrative
staff’s resistance to change and their levels of education and motivation. According to the study
data, resistance might stem from lower levels of education and motivation, as well as the lack of
understanding of changes and their purposes in general. However, Hartley et al. (2016) in their
study on the implementation of autonomy in Kazakhstan indicated that administrative staff

80
realized the importance of changes, but at the same time, they were anxious and struggling with
their implementation. In line with human capital development theory (Becker, 1962), employees’
motivation and productivity could be increased through learning and development and
consequently have a positive impact on the organizational change implementation.
Recommendations for Practice
This section provides recommendations to support capacity development for higher
education administrators in Kazakhstan based on the findings of this study. The three
recommendations take into consideration the wider context of the higher education sector of
Kazakhstan. The recommendations include:
1. The development of a policy on retention and incentivization of administrative
staff.
2. The revision of existing qualification requirements to administrative positions so
that they reflect knowledge and skills necessary for the implementation of changes.
3. The systematization of the capacity development of administrative staff and
development of new approaches to capacity development that will address existing gaps and
challenges.
The table below presents recommendations in alignment with the findings of this
study and how literature support these recommendations:

81
Table 6
Evidence Based Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation Alignment with key findings Literature support
The development of a policy
on retention and
incentivization of
administrative staff
1. Staff retention is essential in
sustaining human capacity
2. Lack of a systematic
approach to capacity
development
1. Bichsel et al.,
2023
2. Goodman,
2023
3. Simmons, 2020
The revision of existing
qualification requirements to
administrative positions so
that they reflect knowledge
and skills necessary for the
implementation of changes
1. Lack of a systematic
approach to capacity
development
2. Aligning of professional
development with needs
1. EU Eurydice
2. Vlachopoulos,
2021
3. Gornitzka &
Larsen, 2004
4. Maheshwari &
Vohra, 2018
The systematization of the
capacity development of
administrative staff and
development of new
approaches to capacity
development that will address
existing gaps and challenges.
1. Lack of a systematic
approach to capacity
development
2. Aligning of professional
development with needs
3. Rapid pace of change
1. Jantassova et
al., 2021
2. Karlsson &
Ryttberg, 2016
3. Scott, 2003
4. Sparks et al.,
2015
Implementation Plan for Recommendations
Recommendation 1. Develop a policy on retention and incentivization of
administrative staff.
Data from interviews indicated that staff motivation and retention are one of the
challenges and issues that universities face. Administrative staff play some of the key roles in the
continuously changing higher education landscape, and experienced staff are needed for
institutions to be able to maintain continuity and ensure uninterrupted implementation of
changes. It is usually administrative staff who fulfill all bureaucratic parts of any change process,
providing support and service to academic staff and students.

82
The study revealed that regional, smaller universities lose their talented employees, as
they leave to bigger centrally located universities or other industries because of low salaries,
limited benefits packages, and lack of opportunities for professional growth. The development of
a staff retention policy is recommended not only to address the challenges with staff retention
and incentivization, but it is also considered an element of a comprehensive systematic approach
to the development of professional staff’s capacity.
Retention of professional staff in higher education institutions is not a problem unique to
the Kazakhstani context. Administrative staff turnover has been considered as one of the
challenges faced by universities globally (Bichsel et al., 2023; Goodman, 2023; Simmons, 2020).
The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey found that the turnover rate
for full-time, exempt staff increased from 7.9% in 2020-2021 academic year to 14.3% in the
2022-2023 academic year (Bichsel et al., 2023). According to the survey, administrative staff at
universities left because they felt underpaid, overworked, and did not get remote work
opportunities. Simmons (2020) and Goodman (2020) also indicated that salary played a key role
in retaining and motivating professional staff at universities.
To minimize risks of negative effects on organizational productivity, climate, and overall
student learning experience (Simmons, 2020), universities should develop clear retention policies
depending on their strategy and institutional priorities to ensure that employees they have been
investing in and training will be retained and contribute to institutional efficiency. Otherwise,
university leadership will have to be in the endless process of searching for new talent, whom
they will teach and train.
Although incentives may include both monetary and non-monetary, increasing salaries is
considered as one of the most impactful and crucial elements among recommended tactics for
staff retention (Goodman, 2023; Simmons, 2020). Other recommendations by the authors also

83
included increasing benefits packages and professional development opportunities. These
suggestions are consistent with recommendations discussed with interview participants who
mostly mentioned the importance of the adequate benefits package.
Since the issue of professional staff retention was not a major goal of this study, it is
recommended that universities or the Ministry conduct a survey to determine key factors
influencing the administrators' retention and to understand their needs and motivations. Another
recommendation is to implement exit surveys to determine why people leave. Based on the
outcomes of such a survey, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and universities in
Kazakhstan will be able to develop a comprehensive policy for retention and motivation of
professional staff at universities.
Recommendation 2. Revise existing qualification requirements to administrative
positions so that they reflect knowledge and skills necessary for the implementation of
changes.
The existing literature on professionalization of administrative jobs in the field of higher
education highlighted how profiles of administrators in higher education have changed over time
in response to changes in the higher education sector (Baltaru & Soysal, 2018; Fielden, 1998;
Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004). Thus, Gornitzka and Larsen (2004) indicated that with the growth of
a number of administrative roles at universities, there was an increase in administrative staff with
a university degree, meaning that qualification requirements increased. Professionalization of
administrative roles at universities led to the increase in formal qualifications and formalization
of a common cognitive basis (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004).
In the European context, the Eurydice Network, the European Commission-funded
education information network, categorized university employees and provided descriptions of
their functions and levels of education required to fulfill certain roles and responsibilities. It

84
provided a framework for higher education institutions to apply a systematic approach in
recruitment and selection of administrative staff, as well as in their training and professional
development (Eurydice Network). Thus, previous studies demonstrated the importance of
developing a commonly accepted profile of administrative staff in higher education institutions,
so that universities know what skills and knowledge were required from their employees for their
efficient operation.
This study revealed the lack of a systematic approach to the development of
administrative staff, which could also be seen in the diverse educational backgrounds of
administrative staff who participated in the survey, as well as the lack of some key skills. The
interview and survey data showed that administrative staff, as well as their supervisors holding
more senior leadership positions, lacked such skills as language proficiency, in particular, in the
English language, as well as some general knowledge and skills in higher education
administration, including strategic planning, and management. In some cases, senior staff did not
always have knowledge in the field they are appointed to supervise and had to learn once they
were already appointed. Therefore, it seems feasible to analyze and revise existing qualification
requirements, so that they reflect what competencies are really needed. It may help determine
gaps between what is needed to be fulfilled by an employee and what they are able to perform.
Determining gaps may be further used in evaluating existing and identifying and developing new
approaches to capacity development of administrative staff.
Knowing what knowledge and skills administrative staff is expected to have impacts both
systematization of capacity development of administrative staff and effective implementation of
change. Approaches to capacity development will be aligned to the required qualifications of
administrative staff, whereas qualifications should also take into consideration changes being
implemented by universities. Extant research on change implementation emphasizes the

85
importance of adequate development and training of employees. Vlachopoulos (2021), in a study
on change management in the UK higher education sector, highlighted the importance of
employees’ understanding what preparation was needed for them to implement planned changes.
Additionally, Maheshwari and Vohra (2018) indicated that through training and development,
employees would acquire skills that would facilitate effective implementation of changes. In the
context of change management, it is also critical to determine purposes and design of training
and development in alignment with changes being implemented (Attaran, 2000, cited in
Maheshwari & Vohra, 2018).
For this recommendation, a substantial amount of the work should be done by HR units
of universities, with significant input from affected administrative units and senior leadership
supervising these units. Universities should first revisit their overall institutional strategies and
then look particularly at how they develop their student support services. Based on the existing
and future initiatives, they should determine what type of knowledge and skills will be of highest
priority and include them in requirements. If there is a significant gap between their current
qualification requirements and proposed requirements, it will also serve as an additional source
of information for the development of new capacity development tools.
Recommendation 3. Systematize capacity development of administrative staff and
development of new approaches to capacity development that will address existing gaps
and challenges.
The findings of this study demonstrated that Kazakhstani higher education institutions
had been experiencing rapid changes, whereas the human capacity development aspect of the
change implementation had not been considered seriously. Change implementation had been
happening in the context where there was a lack of alignment between staff learning and needs of
higher education institutions, as well as the lack of overall systematic approach to the capacity

86
development of administrative staff who are considered as key actors in efficient change
implementation (Scott, 2003; Vlachopoulos, 2021).
Previous research on the implementation of change in higher education argued that
emergence of new administrative roles at universities and their subsequent professionalization
were directly linked to new demands placed on higher education institutions (Karlsson &
Ryttberg, 2016; Scott, 2003). The implementation of changes should be followed by the analysis
of how daily practices of staff had become different and this identification of differences helped
determine gaps in staff capability (Scott, 2003). Karlsson and Ryttberg (2016) argued that new
roles associated with new demands and changes in higher education led to a new set of
competences. Thus, based on the analysis of new required competences and gaps, universities or
the overall higher education system should respond with a new staff development strategy based
on the needs of universities.
Kazakhstan’s higher education sector similarly should respond with a more
comprehensive systematic approach to the development of adequate human resources for
effective change implementation. The study data showed that there were no unified requirements
for qualifications of administrative staff at universities, including requirements related to prior
formal learning.
Similar studies in the context of Kazakhstan suggested that the organization of training
and workshops for administrative staff (involved in internationalization) and the establishment of
a national association of University International Officers could be considered as one of the
strategies to address weaknesses identified in their SWOT analysis (Jantassova et al., 2021;
Sparks et al., 2015).
The realization of this recommendation will be possible if there is involvement from the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, as the approach should be systematic rather than

87
institutional, so that there is a unified approach for the overall higher education system. The
process will require significant financial resources to be deployed.
Potential developers could first review and take stock of existing programs, then look into
skills and knowledge gaps. The next step would be to align the gathered information with the
overall agenda and priorities of the higher education sector. Another valuable step could be
reviewing international associations in the field of student affairs and their professional standards
and borrow and adapt those applicable to the Kazakhstani context. For the implementation phase,
the Ministry should consider inclusion of sufficient budget and respective capacity including
relevant expertise, probably with the attraction of some international consultants.
Limitations and Delimitations
One of the limitations of the study was the survey response rate of 15%, which was lower
than the researcher had expected. With such a response rate, it is not possible to generalize study
results, though generalization of results was one of the significant objectives the study pursued
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Another limitation was that not all survey respondents provided
answers to the open-ended question, which was expected to obtain information essential for the
study. Translation of the survey and interview questions from English to the Russian and Kazakh
languages was quite challenging in terms of specific terms used and there is a possibility that
respondents, especially survey participants, could misinterpret some questions. One of the
interviews was conducted in the Kazakh language, which is not the language that the researcher
often uses. Therefore, there is a chance that some data was lost.
Delimitations of the research represent boundaries that were set by a researcher (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). In the context of this study, delimitations included the fact that university
professional staff who represented the main interest to this study were not interviewed but

88
participated only in the survey. Therefore, the researcher did not have a chance to interact with
administrative staff directly and obtain more comprehensive information that could make a
greater contribution to the study results and subsequently to literature and future research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Results of this study contribute to literature studying the overall role and importance of
professional staff in the changing higher education sector in Kazakhstan. There is scarce
literature that focuses on the capacity development of administrative staff in general, and staff in
student affairs in particular, in the Kazakhstani context. Therefore, the results of this study could
serve as a good starting point that provides some overview for future research.
There are several areas recommended for future research based on the findings and
delimitations of the current research. Future research should focus on analyzing current priorities
of the higher education system and their subsequent impact on higher education institutions, and
how functions and daily practices of professional staff have changed. This will help determine
gaps in capabilities of administrative staff. Determining gaps is essential in the development of
efficient training and development for staff, as well as building a profile of an administrative
employee of a university.
Another area for future research is to determine the role of administrative staff in
implementing changes in higher education institutions. Results of such research could help
increase the importance of professional staff in the success of universities and understand how
they contribute to the efficient implementation of change.
It will also be important to study what motivates professional staff in higher education
institutions, so that they stay in the field or be more engaged and efficient in fulfilling their roles.
Results of such research could help in the development of university retention policies and
formulation of benefits packages.

89
Conclusion
The study aimed to understand how university professional staff in student affairs
perceived existing approaches to their capacity development and identify challenges they faced
in fulfilling their roles in the context of the continuously changing higher education system. The
study was guided by the human capital development theory and change implementation theory.
Concepts of both theories guided the process of analyzing mixed data obtained from the survey
and semi-structured interviews. Although the survey response rate was lower than expected, the
data collected through the survey and interviews were mutually complementary. Major findings
that stemmed from the mixed data served as a basis for the development of three
recommendations that included the following: 1) the development of a policy on retention and
incentivization of administrative staff; 2) the revision of existing qualification requirements to
administrative positions so that they reflect knowledge and skills necessary for the
implementation of changes; and 3) systematization of the capacity development of administrative
staff and development of new approaches to capacity development that will address existing gaps
and challenges. The proposed strategies take into consideration key outcomes of the study, as
well as the wider context of the higher education sector.
Overall, the study revealed some of the pressing challenges that higher education
institutions had been facing, including issues with retention and motivation of professional staff
in higher education institutions. One of the key findings, the lack of alignment of capacity
development programs with real needs of universities in relation to the change implementation
theory, helped the researcher unveil and emphasize the critical role of administrative staff in the
change implementation, as well as the significance of adequate training of these staff.
Discussions of each finding in relation to the existing literature and theoretical frameworks
helped develop practical recommendations and suggestions for future research. Moreover, these

90
discussions and the overall study contributes greatly to address gaps in literature, especially in
relation to the Kazakhstani context.
While the professionalization of university administrative staff in other countries
occurred from 1980 to 1990s (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004), the study results suggest that
professionalization is something that Kazakhstan's higher education system needs to develop and
could benefit from.
Considering the ambitious goals that the Ministry of Science and Higher Education sets,
it is critical to pay attention to the human capacity aspect which is an integral part of the change
implementation process. Efficient use of human resources and its development are also essential
in the context of limited financial resources. Thus, there is a variety of directions that the future
research could focus on and analyze comprehensively.

91
References
Ahn, E., Dixon, J., Chekmareva, L. (2018) in Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., Froumin, I. (eds). 25
Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6
Alase, A. (2017). The task of reviewing and finding the right organizational change theory.
IJELM, 5(2), 198-215. doi: 10.17853/ijelm.2017.2631
AllahMorad, S., Mackie, C. (2021). Education in Kazakhstan. World Education Services.
https://wenr.wes.org/2021/07/education-in-kazakhstan
American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of Ethics.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X11410403#:~:text=Education%2
0researchers%20are%20honest%2C%20fair,jeopardize%20the%20welfare%20of%20oth
ers
Astana Times. (2015, May 25). Kazakhstan unveils 100 concrete steps to implement institutional
reforms. Retrieved February 3, 2023 from https://astanatimes.com/2015/05/kazakhstanunveils-100-concrete-steps-to-implement-institutional-reforms/
Baltaru, R. D., & Soysal, Y. N. (2018). Administrators in higher education: organizational
expansion in a transforming institution. Higher Education, 76(2), 213-229.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-017-0204-3
Bates, R. (2010). History of educational leadership/management.
https://eclass.uowm.gr/modules/document/file.php/ELED260/%CE%9A%CE%A9%CE
%9D%CE%A3%CE%A4%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%9D%CE%99%
CE%94%CE%9F%CE%A5%20%CE%A5%CE%9B%CE%99%CE%9A%CE%9F%20
%CE%9C%CE%91%CE%98%CE%97%CE%9C%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%9F%CE%A

92
3/encyclopedia%20educational%20leadership%20management%20history%202010%20
Bates.pdf
Bayarystanova, E., Arenova, A., & Nurmuhametova, R. (2014). Education system management
and professional competence of managers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
140, 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.448
Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Tubbs, D., Schneider, J. (2023). CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education
Employee Retention Survey. College and University Professional Association for Human
Resources. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/higher-ed-employeeretention-survey-findings-september-2023/
Bossu, C., Brown, N., Warren, V. (2019). Professional and support staff in higher education: An
introduction. In: Bossu, C., Brown, N. (eds) Professional and Support Staff in Higher
Education. University Development and Administration. Springer, Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1607-3_29-2
Bowles, K. (2022, January 24). Who and What is ‘The Administration’? Understanding who is
responsible for managing the campus can help you figure out who can provide help or
whom to complain to. Inside Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/who-and-what-‘-
administration’-university
Breton, T. (2014). A human capital theory of growth: New evidence for an old idea. Center for
Research in Economics and Finance (CIEF), Working Paper No. 14-13.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456903#:~:text=In%201960%20Th
eodore%20Schultz%20expounded,capital%20is%20the%20factor%20most

93
Campus France. (2022). Key figures on student mobility worldwide.
https://ressources.campusfrance.org/publications/chiffres_cles/en/synthese_chiffres_cles_
2022_en.pdf
Carron, G. (1992). Capacity building for educational planning and administration: HEP's
experience. International Working Group on Education. Nice.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000094469/PDF/94469eng.pdf.multi
Center for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility. Strategy on Higher Education
Internationalization in the Republic of Kazakhstan 2025. https://enickazakhstan.edu.kz/ru/post/49
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2017). Human Capital Theory: Assessing the
evidence for the value and importance of people to organizational success.
https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/humancapital-theory-assessing-the-evidence_tcm18-22292.pdf
Chekmareva, L., Dixon, J., Ahn, E. (2016). Building university autonomy in Kazakhstan: Per
Aspera Ad Astra. Almaty Academpress.
https://www.academia.edu/30333195/Building_University_Autonomy_in_Kazakhstan_P
er_Aspera_Ad_Astra?auto=download
Commonwealth Foundation. (2014). Capacity Development Framework.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wE29zPkkeWscmDEpEXmhqdGCxgIMEwllJ_Us
Ph1V1uI/edit
Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2022). Об утверждении Концепции
развития образования Республики Казахстан на 2022 – 2026 годы
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P2200000941

94
Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2019). Развитие образования и
науки РК на 2020-2025 годы. https://strategy2050.kz/ru/state_programs/razvitieobrazovaniya-i-nauki-rk-na-2020-2025-gody/
Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2021). On approval of the Concept of
Lifelong Learning. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P2100000471
Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2018). Об утверждении
Национального плана развития Республики Казахстан до 2025 года и признании
утратившими силу некоторых указов Президента Республики Казахстан.
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U1800000636
European Association for International Education. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2023, from
https://www.eaie.org/community/expert-communities.html
European University Association. (2018). Transition to University Autonomy in Kazakhstan:
State of play of university governance and recommendations for the reform process.
https://trunak.eu/wp-file/TRUNAK%20EUA%20REPORT%20WP1_FINAL.pdf
Gander, M., Girardi, A., & Paull, M. (2019). The careers of university professional staff: A
systematic literature review. Career Development International, 24(7), 597-618.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CDI-07-2018-0191/full/html
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goldhammer, K., Suttle, J. E., Aldridge, W. D., & Becker, G. L. (1967). Issues and problems in
contemporary educational administration (No. 10). Center for the Advanced Study of
Educational Administration, University of Oregon. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED014787
Goodman, R. (2023, November 13). Solving higher education’s newest challenge: Employee
retention. HigherEd Jobs.

95
https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3689&Title=Solving%20
Higher%20Education’s%20Newest%20Challenge%3A%20Employee%20Retention
Guardian News and Media. (n.d.). Best UK universities for education – league table. The
Guardian. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/education/nginteractive/2020/sep/05/best-uk-universities-for-education-league-table
Hartley, M., Gopaul, B., Sagintayeva, A., & Apergenova, R. (2016). Learning autonomy: Higher
education reform in Kazakhstan. Higher Education, 72, 277-289.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-015-9953-z
Holmes, A.G.D. (2020). Researcher positionality – A consideration of its influence and place in
qualitative research - A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of
Education, vol. 8, no. 4, 2020, pp. 1-10. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
Holzweiss, P. C., Walker, D. W., & Conrey, M. (2019). Preparing new professionals for
administrative leadership in higher education: identifying specific skills for training.
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 54-60.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603108.2018.1543217
Independent Agency for Quality Assurance in Education. Higher Education in Kazakhstan.
https://iqaa.kz/en/higher-education/higher-education-in-kazakhstan
Institute of Education, University College London. (n.d.). The history of IOE. IOE - Faculty of
Education and Society. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/about-ioe/history-ioe
Jackson, L. (2023, September 28). Employee retention in higher ed remains a challenge.
HigherEd Jobs.
https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3641&Title=Employee%
20Retention%20in%20Higher%20Ed%20Remains%20a%20Challenge

96
Jantassova, D., Churchill, D., Kozhanbergenova, A., & Shebalina, O. (2021). Capacity building
for internationalization at a technical university in Kazakhstan. Education Sciences,
11(11), 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110735
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2015). Educational research. SAGE Publishing.
Karlsson, S., & Ryttberg, M. (2016). Those who walk the talk: the role of administrative
professionals in transforming universities into strategic actors. Nordic Journal of Studies
in Educational Policy, 2016(2–3). https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.31537
Konrad, A. G. (1976). Professional development needs of administrators in higher education.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ138341
Lee, J. T., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Building local research capacity in higher education: A
conceptual model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 342-357.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1596867
Lewis, K. (2014). Constructions of professional identity in a dynamic higher education sector.
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 18(2), 43-50.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603108.2014.914107
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J.N. (2017). An introduction to educational research. Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publishing.
London School of Economics. Lectures in Labor Economics.
https://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/spischke/ec533/Acemoglu%20Autor%20chapter%201.pdf
Maheshwari, Sh., Vohra, V. (2018). Role of training and development practices in implementing
change. International Journal of Learning and Change, 10(2):131,131-162.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2018.090911

97
Management and Other Education Staff. (2023, November 27). Eurydice.
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/hungary/other-educationexperts-or-staff-working-higher-education
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications
McChesney, K. (date). Paradigms for mixed methods research. Social Research Association.
https://thesra.org.uk/SRA/SRA/Blog/Paradigmsformixedmethodsresearch.aspx#:~:text=Mixed%20
methods%20research%20encourages%20the,and%20others%20with%20qualitative%20r
esearch.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research. A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Brand.
Ministry of Education and Science. (2021). Число иностранных студентов, обучающихся в
казахстанских вузах, достигло 30 тысяч: увеличилось количество прибывших из
дальнего зарубежья.
https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/edu/press/news/details/303592?lang=ru
Monobayeva, A., & Howard, C. (2015). Are post-Soviet republics ready for the new public
management? The case of educational modernization in Kazakhstan. International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(2), 150-164.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2014-0102/full/html
Murphy, P.J. (1984). Preparing administrators for the twenty-first century. Higher Education,
13(4), 439–449. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3446886
Nacada. NACADA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://nacada.ksu.edu/
National Bureau of Statistics. (date) title. https://new.stat.gov.kz/

98
National Research Council 2002. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10236
Nazarbayev University. (date). Nazarbayev University Strategy 2018-2030.
https://nu.edu.kz/about
Nurbek, S. (January 19, 2023). Increasing the global competitiveness of science and universities
of Kazakhstan. [Nazarbayev University]
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007. Higher Education in
Kazakhstan. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/countries/kazakhstan/reviewsofnationalpoliciesforeducationhighere
ducationinkazakhstan.htm
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). The challenge of
capacity development: Working towards good practice, OECD Papers, vol. 6/1,
https://doi.org/10.1787/oecd_papers-v6-art2-en
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2017. Reviews of national
policies for education. Higher education in Kazakhstan 2017. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264268531-
en.pdf?expires=1660563086&id=id&accname=oid033066&checksum=1E08518D14E2C
A4D0E5D8A9AE11A0311
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2018. Education policy
outlook: Kazakhstan. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/EducationPolicy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Kazakhstan-2018.pdf
Oxford University. (n.d.). https://www.education.ox.ac.uk/about-us/

99
Penn Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy. (date). Kazakhstan University autonomy
and governance reform collaboration. https://www.ahead-penn.org/researchprojects/higher-ed-reform-kazakhstan
Robertson, P.J., Hooley, T., & McCash, Ph. (eds). (2020). The Oxford Handbook of Career
Development. Oxford Academic.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190069704.001.0001
Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data. Sage
Publications
Ryttberg, M., & Geschwind, L. (2017). Professional support staff at higher education institutions
in Sweden: Roles and success factors for the job. Tertiary Education and Management,
23, 334-346. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1080/13583883.2017.1322631
Schultz, R. E. (1968). The preparation of college and university administrators. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 49(7), 390-394. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20372098
Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, Vol. 51, No.
1, 1-17.
https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEESchultzInvestmentHumanCapital.pdf
Scott, G. (2003, November 1). Effective change management in higher education. EDUCAUSE
Review, vol. 38, no. 6 (November/December 2003): 64–80.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2003/11/effective-change-management-in-highereducation
Seitova, D. (2016). Perspectives on the present state and future of higher education faculty
development in Kazakhstan: Implications for national human resource development.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), 11081-11096.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1120637

100
Sergil, C. & Çağanağa, Ç. (2017). Major trends in training education administrators in the World
and conclusions to be drawn for Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Humanities
and Social Science Invention, 17-23. https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v6(3)/versionIV/C0603041723.pdf
Shah, M. and Whiteford, G. (2017). Bridges, pathways and transitions. Chandos Publishing.
Shannon, G.S. and Bylsma, P. (2007). The nine characteristics of high-performing schools: A
research-based resource for schools and districts to assist with improving student
learning. (2nd Ed.). Olympia, WA: OSPI. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499819
Simmons, M.L (2020). Employee retention strategies in U.S. colleges and universities. Walden
Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10530&&context=dissertat
ions&&seiredir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Furl%253Fq%253Dh
ttps%253A%252F%252Fscholarworks.waldenu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%2
53Farticle%25253D10530%252526context%25253Ddissertations%2526sa%253DD%25
26source%253Ddocs%2526ust%253D1713896672383729%2526usg%253DAOvVaw1o
Nm3vBMyf9L_Nhle4sD_p#search=%22https%3A%2F%2Fscholarworks.waldenu.edu%
2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D10530%26context%3Ddissertations%22
Society for College and University Planning. (n.d.). (title?). Retrieved March 2, 2023, from
https://www.scup.org/planning-type/
Sweetland, S. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of a field of inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3):341-359.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240723577_Human_Capital_Theory_Foundatio
ns_of_a_Field_of_Inquiry

101
Teachers College, Columbia University. (n.d.). Teachers College - Columbia University.
https://www.tc.columbia.edu/about/history/
Tokayev, K. (September 1, 2021). President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s State of
the Nation Address [Akorda]. https://www.akorda.kz/en/state-of-the-nation-addressbypresident-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-kassym-jomart-tokayev-38126
Tokayev, K. (September 1, 2022). President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s State of
the Nation Address [Akorda]. https://www.akorda.kz/en/president-kassym-jomarttokayevs-state-of-the-nation-address-181857
Vlachopoulos, D. (2021). Organizational change management in higher education through the
lens of executive coaches. Educ. Sci., 11, 269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11060269
Weiner, B. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Sci 4, 67
(2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Wilfong, S., Miller, D. (2022). What is student services and how does it benefit students? Best
Colleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/what-is-student-services/
Whitchurch, C. (2006). Who do they think they are? The changing identities of professional
administrators and managers in UK higher education. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 28(2), 159-171.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600800600751002
World Conference on Higher Education. (1998). Higher education staff development: a
continuing mission: thematic debate; higher education in the twenty-first century, vision
and action; Paris, 5-9 October 1998. Unesco.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=6152e9239c39a40284
38a1095add87be690d89f1

102
Appendix A
Recruitment Email
Dear Colleague,
I am a doctoral student in the Global Executive EdD Program at the University of Southern
California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a survey on understanding learning needs
of higher education administrators in Kazakhstan.
I invite you to participate in the survey that will help gain a better understanding of educational
and professional development needs of administrators in higher education, challenges they face
in their work and common pathways to their current positions. The study results will contribute
to the research on this topic in Kazakhstan, as there is a very limited number of existing studies.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. All survey
responses will be used for research purposes only and kept strictly confidential. Completing the
survey should take about 15 minutes of your time.
Here is the link to the survey. Your participation is highly appreciated.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at telmanov@usc.edu.
Sincerely,
Madina Telmanova

103
Appendix B
Anonymous Survey Items
1. Do you work in any of the units engaged in student services?
 Yes
 No
2. What is your age?
 21-30
 31-40
 41-50
 51-60
 Above 60
3. What is the highest level of education you have?
 Bachelor's degree
 Master's degree
 PhD
 Other (please specify)
4. What discipline is your highest degree in?
 Humanities
 Social sciences
 Engineering
 Natural sciences
 Education
 Computer sciences
 Medicine
 Other (please specify)
5. What is your current job title?
6. How many years of experience do you have in higher education administration?
Less than 5 years 16-20 years
5-10 years More than 20 years
11-15 years
7. How many years of experience do you have in your current role?
Less than 5 years 16-20 years
5-10 years More than 20 years
11-15 years
8. Type of the institution you currently work at
 National
 State

104
 Regional
 Private
9. What was the position that you held prior to your current position?
 Academic (teaching)
 Academic (administrative)
 Administrative
 Came from another industry
 Not applicable
10. Did you have any special training related to your current position? (e.g. degree program;
professional development program; short-term course, etc.)
 No
 Yes
11. If you responded Yes to Question #10, please specify what type of training you had:
 Degree program
 In-service programs
 Certification programs
 Short-term courses
 Long-term courses
 Other (please specify)
12. What of the following you feel you lack and experience difficulty with in fulfilling your job
duties? (please, select all that apply)
 Language skills (English language)
 Job related knowledge (e.g. student services, career advising, etc.)
 General knowledge related to higher education administration (e.g. strategic planning,
budget planning, time management, team management, etc.)
 Understanding and knowing institutional culture
 Other (please specify)
 None – I do not feel I am lacking any of these skills or knowledge.
13. What training/learning opportunities do you have in your current job? (select all that apply)
 taught courses
 professional networks
 mentoring
 self-study courses
 conferences
 seminars
 job shadowing
 open lectures and seminars
 workshops
 staff mobility through Erasmus+ and similar programs
 other

105
 None – I have no training or learning opportunities in my current job.
14. How often do you have trainings organized by your employer that are related to your field of
work?
 Very frequently (1-2 times every 3-4 months)
 Frequently (1-2 times every 6 months)
 Infrequently (1 time a year)
 Not at all
 I do not know
15. Does your university have any policy regulating administrative employees’ training and
professional development?
 No
 Yes
 I do not know
16. Do you feel satisfied with training opportunities and support by your employer?
 Definitely yes
 Probably yes
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Probably not
 Definitely not
17. Please share your suggestions on what could be done to help prepare/train staff in student
services at higher education institutions (e.g. open degree programs, provide compulsory
professional development programs, establish professional networks and associations, etc.)

106
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Interview Questions (with university leadership)
What do you think about your university’s capacity to implement the changes needed?
Are there any challenges that you and your team of student services administrators encounter
in the implementation of changes? If yes, what are they?
Could you tell me about how your institution supports the development of professional skills
of administrative staff who work with students?
How do you motivate your staff to participate in professional development programs?
From your perspective as a leader, what skills do administrative staff who work with students
of your institution need to enhance further, if any?
From your perspective as a leader, what knowledge do administrative staff of your institution
need to enhance further, if any?
Do you think other approaches to preparation of administrative staff would have an impact on the
change implementation at your institution? What about the national level?
If yes to the previous question, how might it impact?
What would you recommend to enhance/strengthen capacity of administrators in student
services, if anything?

107
Appendix D
Information Sheet
My name is Madina Telmanova, and I am a student at the University of Southern California. I
also hold a role as director of the Department of Strategic Planning and Experience Sharing at
Nazarbayev University.
I am conducting a research study on how the capacity of higher education administrators
involved in student services has been developed at national and organizational levels in the
context of ongoing transformations and changes happening in the higher education system in
Kazakhstan. The name of this research study is “Developing Capacity for Higher Education
Administration in Kazakhstan". I am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns at any
point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. You work at university
2. You hold a leadership position (rector or vice-rector)
3. You have an administrative role at university, particularly, you work in student
affairs/services, career services, admission and enrollment, international office
4. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete an online survey for 15 minutes
2. Participate in a 1:1 interview over Zoom or in-person for 30-40 minutes
I will publish the results in my thesis and a presentation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information.
All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data, deidentified with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: telmanov@usc.edu,
+77015997159. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or
email irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand higher education administrators’ perceptions of capacity development programs and challenges they face in the change implementation process, as well as potential implications of capacity development for change implementation. With continuous transformations in the field of higher education in Kazakhstan, needs and roles of universities are changing. Thus, the development of relevant organizational capacity becomes critical in such context. The study employed the mixed methods approach and collected data using a survey of university administrative staff from student affairs and career centers and semi-structured interviews with university leadership. The obtained data revealed four key themes: 1) lack of systematic approach to capacity development; 2) aligning professional development with needs; 3) rapid pace of change; and 4) staff retention is essential in sustaining human capacity. Based on these findings three evidence-based recommendations were developed: 1) development of a policy on retention and incentivization of administrative staff; 2) revision of existing qualification requirements to administrative positions so that they reflect knowledge and skills necessary for the implementation of changes; and 3) systematization of the capacity development of administrative staff and development of new approaches to capacity development that will address existing gaps and challenges. Results of the study contribute to literature in organizational change and capacity development of university administrative staff, with a particular focus on Kazakhstani context. In addition, the study creates grounds for further research, especially with elaboration of themes revealed in this study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding digital transformation of early childhood pre-service teacher education in China

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

How real estate programs respond to the rapidly changing external environment

PDF

Developing group critique methods in contemporary fine art courses at Chinese art universities

PDF

Examining the underrepresentation of Black students, practitioners, and faculty in the physician assistant/associate profession

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Growing international student enrollment from developing markets

PDF

Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

How socioeconomic status influences career planning for college business majors in Hong Kong

PDF

Leading the country in TVET: Don Bosco Technical Vocational Education and Training Center

PDF

Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Standards as drivers of internationalization

PDF

Impressions of diversity: frontline fundraiser hiring in higher education

PDF

Attracting and retaining talent: improving the impact of workplace mentorship

PDF

Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study

PDF

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Telmanova, Madina (author)

Core Title Developing capacity for higher education administration in Kazakhstan

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/13/2024

Defense Date 05/06/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administrative staff,capacity development,change implementation,Kazakhstan,transformation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Merriman, Lynette (committee member), Zukoski, Charles (committee member)

Creator Email telmanova88@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998TFY

Unique identifier UC113998TFY

Identifier etd-TelmanovaM-13376.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-TelmanovaM-13376

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Telmanova, Madina

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240813-usctheses-batch-1197 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu